"It is a feature not a bug". Having to declare local variables in the scope
that contains all the code that’s going to use them allows you to control what
the variables are exposed to, it prevents you from writing or reading someone
else’s variable, and it serves as documentation.
Agus
On May
> > > 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
To be clear, the `. * 2` example is an exaggeration. It’d be logical to
restrict it to (Optional)MemberExpressions but my point is that I think what
you’re allowed to do with it is not obvious. I think this is why Elm doesn’t
support it.
--
Agustín Zubiaga
On Nov 25, 2019, 12:54 PM -0500,
Hi Bob! I’m glad you like the proposal!
> Using `.a` to denote a function to retrieve the value of the property named
> `a` was actually part of an earlier proposal for a number of ways to extend
> dot notation. I won't link to that proposal since it's obsolete now, but it
> also allowed
>
>
Hi folks! I'd like to hear your feedback on a proposal idea I have and that I
couldn't find anything on. Here is what I have so far.
With the rising popularity of functional programming patterns in JavaScript,
functions that take an object and return the value of a property are
ubiquitous.
5 matches
Mail list logo
