I believe you're referring to
https://web.archive.org/web/20160310120516/http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_literals#object_extension_literal?
While my proposal is similar in theory, it does have a few differences
in practice. Namely, object extension literals only update properties on
the root object, they don't allow for function calls. The intended
purpose of the two proposals are also quite different: object extension
literal were intended to be used as part of the object creation process,
the cascade operator on the other hand, while it can be used for object
creation, the main focus is to ease using objects.
Furthermore, object extension literals where proposed 7 years ago. Long
before jQuery and the rise of fluent interface popularity in the
javascript community.
To summarise: A similar proposal was indeed rejected but the cascade
operator has notable differences, and javascript is in a very different
place then it was 7 years ago.
On 11/12/18 5:31 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I have a dejavu ... a similar proposal was rejected a while ago.
Can't remember its name but it was like:
```js
foo.{
a.b = c;
d();
}
```
how is this different, if it's actually any different?
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 2:23 PM T.J. Crowder
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:49 PM Timothy Johnson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It's **great** to see a proposal backed by an example
implementation. :-)
I suggest adding some explanation to the proposal about how your
example knows the `..d()` applies to `foo` and not to `c`. From
the Dart documentation, I'd *guess* (not being a Dart person) that
it's because you'd need parens around the `c..d()` to force it to
apply to that instead, but... More about the specific mechanics of
that as it applies to JS would be useful.
Probably also worth a one-liner that you're aware of and have
allowed for how this relates to numeric literals (e.g.,
`console.log(12..toString())`). I can see in your commit on the
Babel fork that you have allowed for it, but for those who don't
dig that deep...
If this were in the language, I'd happily use it. I don't really
feel the lack of it, though.
-- T.J. Crowder
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
