On 01.06.2011 3:06, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
On 05/29/11 07:00, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Yeah, and ES also supports them. It's called a generator expression;
in this proposal it would look like:
let squares = (x * x | x data, x 5);
Ahem, that's already a parenthesized comma expression
P.S.: another question I have -- is it worth and makes sense to raise a topic
on considering/standardizing the pattern matching (Dave's proposal)?
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:pattern_matching Brendan
mentioned on Twitter that it's too late (?), but IMO this proposal is
On 01.06.2011 10:57, David Herman wrote:
P.S.: another question I have -- is it worth and makes sense to raise a topic on
considering/standardizing the pattern matching (Dave's proposal)?
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:pattern_matching Brendan mentioned on
Twitter that it's
On Jun 1, 2011, at 12:21 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Ah, come on, of course I didn't compare them apples-to-apples. Just said that
it's more likely that some elegant and powerful syntactic construction/sugar
will be used more often than use-cases with WeakMaps and it turns out that
much
On 05/29/11 07:00, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Yeah, and ES also supports them. It's called a generator expression; in this
proposal it would look like:
let squares = (x * x | x data, x 5);
Ahem, that's already a parenthesized comma expression with operands
x * x | x data
and
x 5.
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Hi,
Don't get this proposal as a bikesheding, just an idea in case if arrow
functions will win the block-functions.
What about to make a sugar for Array comprehensions based also on arrow
syntax? The same as in Erlang:
let data =
On 29.05.2011 16:18, Jose Antonio Perez wrote:
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Hi,
Don't get this proposal as a bikesheding, just an idea in case if
arrow functions will win the block-functions.
What about to make a
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Array comprehensions shorter syntax (?)
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Hi,
Don't get this proposal as a bikesheding, just an idea in case if arrow
functions will win the block-functions.
What about to make a sugar for Array
can’t get
intellisense working since the variable is declared after the expression.
Best regards,
François
*From:* Jose Antonio Perez mailto:josea...@gmail.com
*Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 2:18 PM
*To:* es-discuss@mozilla.org mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
*Subject:* Re: Array comprehensions
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
That's it, exactly. We always looking for a shorter sugar. Though, the main
thing that the sugar shouldn't be cryptic at the same time. Probably
Erlang's list comprehensions are cryptic for someone, but again, taking into
account
Errata: + must be *
ListComprehension : '[' Expression '|' IterableOrFilter
(,IterableOrFilter)* ']'
IterableOrFilter: Id '-' ArrayOrGenerator | BooleanFilter
Jose.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On May 29, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Jose Antonio Perez wrote:
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
That's it, exactly. We always looking for a shorter sugar. Though, the main
thing that the sugar shouldn't be cryptic at the same time. Probably Erlang's
list comprehensions are
On 29.05.2011 23:29, Brendan Eich wrote:
On May 29, 2011, at 7:17 AM, Jose Antonio Perez wrote:
2011/5/29 Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
That's it, exactly. We always looking for a shorter sugar.
Though, the main thing that the sugar
On May 29, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
P.S.: though, btw, IIRC, you said the same when an year ago I proposed arrow
functions or Ruby's blocks and they were refused because of grammar reasons;
today we want them to standardize ;) I mean, perhaps what seems not so needed
14 matches
Mail list logo
