On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:01 PM wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> > > 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
Can you clarify in what sense you see this as a special case of that
proposal?
To put it in very simple terms, we would like to do something like
`array.map(.name)`.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:33 AM Isiah Meadows
wrote:
> BTW, all this is very much just a special case of this (existing stage
> 1)
BTW, all this is very much just a special case of this (existing stage
1) proposal, and is part of why it exists:
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-partial-application
I do find it surprising that property access isn't addressed there,
but it seems like it was likely just overlooked - it has no
At the cost of adding more code, but giving more power, perhaps what we
want is something akin to Kotlin's `it` keyword:
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/lambdas.html?_ga=2.238822404.500195435.1575368476-1345353619.1575368476#it-implicit-name-of-a-single-parameter
*it: implicit name of a
On 11/24/19 9:17 PM, Bob Myers wrote:
FWIW, the syntax `.propName` does appear to be syntactically unambiguous.
It conflicts with contextual keywords such as `new . target`.
Waldemar
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
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
>
>
This is a great proposal which I hope can attract the support of the powers
that be. The arrival of optional chaining seems to indicate a renewed
interest in optimizing the way properties are accessed--which after all is
a big part of what JS does for a living.
Using `.a` to denote a function to
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.
10 matches
Mail list logo
