Re: [Idea] Bind operator as some sort of property acessor

Yeah, you are right. The docs seems a bit confusing and I didn't notice it. Thanks for the attention Em ter, 7 de mar de 2017 às 21:43, Logan Smyth escreveu: Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are looking for, I believe the current proposal accounts for this as

Re: [Idea] Bind operator as some sort of property acessor

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are looking for, I believe the current proposal accounts for this as `::arr.push` with no expression before the `::`. Logan On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Augusto Moura wrote: > Before I open any suggestion for my ideia in the

[Idea] Bind operator as some sort of property acessor

Before I open any suggestion for my ideia in the [bind-operator](// github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-operator) proposal, I like to know you guys' opinion about, and if even it is in the scope of the current proposal. There are moments when we want to export instances methods binded with their

Re: Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

I presented it as a holistic concept, but I ensured it still could be added piecemeal. When I have time, I'll add that to my gist, how it can be taken and implemented piecemeal. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, 07:18 Matthew Robb wrote: > One major difference I can see is that the

Re: Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

* It was dropped for a number of reasons, including confusion with `yield *`, and there being no way to provide syntactic support for Promise.race, or other future combinators. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Robb wrote: > One major difference I can see is that

Re: Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

One major difference I can see is that the earliest async/await proposals included `async *` which was eventually dropped for no practical reason other than it seemed to add bloat to a spec that AT THE TIME looked like it would be hard to push through the process. History tells a different story

Re: Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

I'll note that async functions had a similar thing going on, too. Most third-party libraries had most issues taken care of, but what landed in the spec was only a fraction of what most libraries provided. The Observable proposal is turning out to be similar in this respect. - Isiah Meadows

Re: Observable/Promise parallel control flow proposal

Isiah I think there is a lot of value in the work you have done here. I think it would be useful to see this broken down in a way that makes solving the Promise cases in a way that would be forward compatible with Observers front and center. Right now it feels optimistically speculative because