Is there any reason why this proposal isn't being considered? Not only is (int | string) more intuitive than (int, string), the (int, string) syntax can be reserved for another yet-unknown purpose.
Along the same lines, I find the syntax for constraining list types to be unintuitive. [int] is very different from [int, string], and [int, string] is very different from (int, string). Perhaps that (int, string) can describe the tuple type. And [int | string] could be syntactic sugar for [(int | string)]. The usage of "|" improves readability in that there's no way to confuse a union type with a tuple type. -Yuh-Ruey Chen Jason Orendorff wrote: > On Oct 26, 2007 6:35 PM, James Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (int, string) doesn't seem to me to be a syntax that the average JS > > programmer will guess means union. I would have thought a better choice > > would be (int | string) (especially given that regexps use |) or a keyword. > > Yep. I read (int, string) as a tuple type every time. ML, Haskell, > Python 3.0... I'm not sure what we gain by going against the grain > here. > > So it's not a big deal, but switching to (t1 | t2) seems all upside to > me. It's a shallow change. +1. > > -j > _______________________________________________ > Es4-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss > > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
