Hi Rowan,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:00 AM Rowan Tommins <rowan.coll...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> myObj.with {
> foo = 10
> bar = foo + 20
> }
>
I really like the suggested "with" syntax, - in fact I had
contemplated something like that along the way.
The slight "problem", I think, is that, as you mention, adding a fully
fledged "with" syntax would imply that you could do a lot more than simply
assigning values to properties.
And while I agree that that would be cool, it feels like overkill for the
actual problem COPA is trying to solve.
Do you think a narrow version of "with" syntax could be incorporated into
COPA without causing frustration? Or would it be wise to give it its own
RFC?
I haven't researched if there have already been RFCs proposing something
along the lines of "with", and as such I have no idea if it has already
been discussed and found problematic.
> I'm not sure whether I like this idea or not, but I thought I'd share
> it, because I think COPA as currently proposed is too narrow a use case
> to deserve a special syntax.
>
I understand and fully agree that COPA is narrow, but I don't really
understand why that's a problem - I proposed it exactly because I felt that
its simplicity is its force.
Low hanging fruit is usually something I would encourage to go after.
I believe it's a trivial implementation that can help in uncountable
situations where you just need to assign values to a predefined data
structure in a single expression.
I'd really like to hear the arguments against such a cost-benefit
calculation.
Cheers,
Jakob
