Re: Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-07 Thread Mike Samuel
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Jérémy Judéaux wrote: > ```js > > import _ from 'lodash-for-chaining'; > import $ from 'jquery-for-chaining'; > import BB from 'bluebird-for-chaining'; > import W from 'whenjs-for-chaining'; > > const toArray = iterable => [...iterable];

Re: Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-07 Thread Jérémy Judéaux
> I tend to agree with peter that function-composition and pipe-operators are > likely footguns > that don't solve anything new, and that you should be careful what you wish > for. I would like to give my opinion about how the `|>` operator solves something new. It’s not the function

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-06 Thread Jordan Harband
You can continue using ES5 forever; there's no need to obstruct the progress of the language just because it's evolving to have features you never intend to use. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:06 PM, kai zhu wrote: > > Kai, I see you often trying to block new inventions with the

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-06 Thread kai zhu
> Kai, I see you often trying to block new inventions with the argument, that other people will not understand it. no insult taken. to me, its a valid argument, and one that i'm not ashamed to use over and over and over again, nor should anyone else who feels like me the language-spec is mature,

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-05 Thread Michael Kriegel
Quoting kai zhu: "more people like me might look at es9/10 code that may have this feature and think "this looks nothing like javascript" anymore, and then join es-discuss to complain about having to debug other people's unreadable code like i do." Maybe they should read up the manuals /

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-05 Thread Jordan Harband
If operators are in JS, then code using them reads like JS by definition. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:38 PM, kai zhu wrote: > i tend to agree with peter that function-composition and pipe-operators > are likely footguns that don't solve anything new, and that you should be >

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-05 Thread kai zhu
i tend to agree with peter that function-composition and pipe-operators are likely footguns that don't solve anything new, and that you should be careful what you wish for. like es6, its all fun when you're writing your own code, but not so much when you "inherit" someone else's orphaned

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-04 Thread Naveen Chawla
In case anyone is reading this on esdiscuss.org, the 2nd link gets broken when posting it. It's this one (edited on esdiscuss.org): https://github.com/TheNavigateur/proposal-pipeline-operator-for-function-composition On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 at 17:36 kdex wrote: > Ah, I see where

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-01 Thread kdex
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification! There has recently been some discussion about the semantics of `|>` in [1]. I think what you're looking for is [2], perhaps? [1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pipeline-operator/issues/50 [2]

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-01 Thread Peter van der Zee
> Sorry, but your message looks very opinionated and I can't seem to find any objective reasoning in there. Nah, you might be thrown off by the different grammar ;) Ok. Thing is, `|>` would introduce a new way of calling a function in a way that is not at all in line with how functions are

Re: Mixing grammars

2017-09-01 Thread kdex
Sorry, but your message looks very opinionated and I can't seem to find any objective reasoning in there. Would you be willing to discuss what exactly you consider the repercussions to be? Many functional languages allow function chaining, some even with a similar syntax. F# features pipe

Mixing grammars

2017-09-01 Thread Peter van der Zee
I want quickly a point to make. I have a while ago of the, well, I know actually not how that thing is called, but the "|> operator" heard. I ignored it as "funny but a very different paradigm than JS". Now see I today a tweet pass by that somebody a draft of a propasal has created [1] to this