On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:01 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> I do find it surprising that property access isn't addressed there, >> but it seems like it was likely just overlooked - it has no mention in >> the repo, in the open issues, or even in the closed issues or any of >> the open or closed pull requests. > > Actually, they do seem to address it here as a non-goal: > https://github.com/tc39/proposal-partial-application#support-for-receiver-placeholder > > If we had that, then we wouldn’t need a specific syntax for property > accessors. However, arrow functions are already pretty compact, so I don’t > feel a strong desire for this `receiver placeholder` syntax or something like > Kotlin’s `it`. I know the same logic applies to a `property accessor` > proposal, but accessing properties in JS is extremely common and in my > opinion, deserving of a syntax shorthand.
Yes, in general, unfortunately, the partial-application proposal doesn't help with partially applying operators (note in their examples that they explicitly use an add() function, since you couldn't use + with it). You'd have to jump to the competing pipeline proposal for that; `+>#.foo` is the shortest way to spell it there. I agree that `x=>x.foo` is a very small syntax tax to pay to create an accessor function; I haven't found it problematic to do so in my own coding. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
