On 1 March 2012 19:34, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have
it available for functions?
I am always reticent to re-use lexical features of one language when
implementing in another with wildly different
(wow I don't know where these stale message came fromplease ignore)
On Mar 1, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It was recently suggest to me that it is unlikely that we will ever adopt -
as as function expression shorthand symbol and that this means we could
consider using
On 3 March 2012 02:06, Luke Hoban lu...@microsoft.com wrote:
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have
it available for some possible future function shorthand?
Both = and - have strong associations with function shorthands from C#,
Scala, C++, Java 8, Perl,
On 3 March 2012 23:20, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have
it available for some possible future function shorthand?
Both = and - have strong associations with function
I think it's worse to have combined characters, like #@ or ^ than it is
to have same character repeated... ^^ looks nice to me (also points up,
which may create a little analogy to the UML generalization), but ok.
Two same characters are more easily spotted, imho, and they are more
easily
looks like a bitwise operator and if ** was to be an operator, I'd
prefer it to be a shorhand for Math.pow.
Sent from my smartphone.
On Mar 4, 2012 11:21 AM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
I think it's worse to have combined characters, like #@ or ^ than it is
to have same character
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Dean Landolt wrote:
Does it /have/ to be ascii?
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
The problem with | and friends is that the common mental association
with these symbols do
On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Dean Landolt wrote:
Does it /have/ to be ascii?
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
a while back, and we discussed alternative contextual keywords. Grawlix
appears to result in (a) strong
John J Barton wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eichbren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Dean Landolt wrote:
Does it /have/ to be ascii?
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
The problem with| and friends is that the common mental association
I'm not a native english speaker and I think both are the same when
learning.
Words allow people not knowing JS to kind of understand.
Symbols are shorter to write and are easier to spot when looking at code.
I'd prefer a symbol but I'm sure others would prefer a word (that's why
some operators
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 4, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Herby Vojčík wrote:
P.P.S.: I don't know what 'beget' means (I know I can find it,
just to illustrate it's not a commonly known word).
If you don't know the word, is it easier to learn a new symbol (eg
|) or a new keyword (eg beget)?
On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
+1. Using a symbol like an arrow makes a lot of sense when there is a clear
directionality in the operation (e.g. chasing a chain of pointers in C), but
the lack
I worry mainly about terminology. Wouldn’t “beget” introduce a new term for
specifying “the prototype of”? Learning a new word in and of itself has never
been a problem for me, especially when it goes along with a new concept.
More possibilities (I know some of these have been suggested before,
On 03/04/2012 02:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Dean Landolt wrote:
Does it /have/ to be ascii?
Does it have to be grawlix? [snip...]
I have two significant sized code samples that differ only in the use
of beget in place of |
Compare:
On 03/04/2012 03:38 PM, Gavin Barraclough wrote:
On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
+1. Using a symbol like an arrow makes a lot of sense when there is a
clear directionality in the operation (e.g.
Experiment: I’ve written down the proposals that have been made so far, to
reduce the circles we are going in. Let me know of any corrections or additions
I should make.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Apu8J_NsHwGGdHRtTThMZWdocy1ad2ZCaktpVVdPWEE
On Mar 4, 2012, at 18:30 , Allen
On Mar 3, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
...
Does it have to be ascii? The growlix space of unicode is vast:
https://plus.google.com/109925364564856140495/posts
Reaching into the depths of unicode was roundly panned during the function
shorthand debates but Allen's reach for ◁ is
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:36:31 +0100, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de
wrote:
Experiment: I’ve written down the proposals that have been made so far,
to reduce the circles we are going in. Let me know of any corrections or
additions I should make.
This list is really useful!
One more to add:
:
... has also been proposed
Rick
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Experiment: I’ve written down the proposals that have been made so far, to
reduce the circles we are going in. Let me know of any
A friend commented, all the symbol forms are difficult to speak over a
phone. The operator will need a common pronounceable name, so why not use
that instead of a symbol.
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
Allen,
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Allen
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, felix feli...@gmail.com wrote:
A friend commented, all the symbol forms are difficult to speak over a
phone. The operator will need a common pronounceable name, so why not use
that instead of a symbol.
that or prototypeof?
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, felix feli...@gmail.com wrote:
A friend commented, all the symbol forms are difficult to speak over a
phone. The operator will need a common pronounceable name,
prototype for is also referred to as:
- prototype operator
- proto operator
- ProtoLiteral
Rick
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
that or prototypeof?
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at
In the spirit of derives from (it really is more intuitive for most,
though I liked | because I already got used to UML direction), I'd throw in
== (as in it follows (that))
I also wanted to add something like modus ponens character used in
logic, but
|-
does not work, it already has its
More possibilities (Alas, * does not work, because the asterisk is not
vertically centered in some fonts), in order of preference (the first one has
already been suggested, but AFAIK not been rejected, yet).
let sub = sup : {p:1, q:2};
let sub = sup ~ {p:1, q:2};
let sub = sup {p:1, q:2};
let
Overloading bitwise operators, which is pretty easy to determine?
var parent = { prop1: parent1 };
inherit + overrides
var obj = parent | { prop1: newValue1, inherit2 : inherit2 }
= { prop1: parent1, prop2: inherit2 }
inherit - overrides
var diff = proto { prop1: newValue1: prop2: value 2
On Mar 3, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
More possibilities (Alas, * does not work, because the asterisk is not
vertically centered in some fonts), in order of preference (the first one has
already been suggested, but AFAIK not been rejected, yet).
let sub =
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
I'm with Luke here. We shouldn't abuse a common idiom from other
languages, including upstream ones such as CoffeeScript.
Kris's suggestion of + changed to deal with the wrong direction
criticism (which I find compelling
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
One argument for the wrong direction being wrong: if A : B is common math
syntax for A is a subtype of B, if you turn the arrow around it'd read A is
a supertype of B, and this is fairly close to what | was trying to
One argument for the wrong direction being wrong: if A : B is common math
syntax for A is a subtype of B, if you turn the arrow around it'd read A is a
supertype of B, and this is fairly close to what | was trying to express.
Right! Thus: If the symbol looks like an arrow then it should
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM, John J Barton
johnjbar...@johnjbarton.comwrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Dean Landolt d...@deanlandolt.com wrote:
One argument for the wrong direction being wrong: if A : B is common
math
syntax for A is a subtype of B, if you turn the arrow around
Speaking of compositions though, I can't recall if it was ever discussed
whether this operator can be chained, and if so, whether it associates. I
don't see too much value in this since references to any intermediate
constructions would only be available by walking the proto chain. I can't
On Mar 3, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
Speaking of compositions though, I can't recall if it was ever discussed
whether this operator can be chained, and if so, whether it associates. I
don't see too much value in this since references to any intermediate
constructions would
OK, forget that. You could still produce left-hand sides...
On Mar 3, 2012, at 17:57 , Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Speaking of compositions though, I can't recall if it was ever discussed
whether this operator can be chained, and if so, whether it associates. I
don't see too much value in this
On Mar 3, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
What you're describing sounds a lot more like trait composition than
prototypal extension. While that'd be great it's already been nixed for this
go-round. I don't really think of this op as a function composition but
regardless, it's
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:55:59 +0100, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
At this stage, choice of a symbol seems to be most about what will cause
the lesser about of opposition based solely upon the symbol choice.
Some people seem top really hate |. If there a reasonable
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:55:59 +0100, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
At this stage, choice of a symbol seems to be most about what will cause
the lesser about of opposition based solely upon the symbol choice.
Some people seem top really hate |. If there a reasonable
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:55:59 +0100, Allen Wirfs-Brock
al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
At this stage, choice of a symbol seems to be most about what will cause
the lesser about of opposition based solely upon the symbol choice.
Some people seem top really hate |. If there a reasonable
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:45:48 +0100, Jonas Höglund fire...@firefly.nu
wrote:
[...]
Eek, sorry about the spam. My mail client wasn't properly set up.
Jonas
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Jonas Höglund wrote:
Since it seems there are many supporters for arrow-like symbols pointing
in either direction, and both of these groups seem to think the symbol
points in the wrong direction if it isn't the direction they imagine it
pointing to, perhaps it's better to look for more
I find the syntax `proto - object' counter-intuitive. Anytime I think
about prototype delegation,
the semantics are clear that an object `X' delegates to a prototype `Y'.
This semantics don't map
well in `proto - object', instead you have something more along the
lines `proto is the basis of
I find the syntax `proto - object' counter-intuitive. Anytime I think
about prototype delegation,
the semantics are clear that an object `X' delegates to a prototype `Y'.
This semantics don't map
well in `proto - object', instead you have something more along the
lines `proto is the basis of
On Mar 3, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Herby Vojčík he...@mailbox.sk wrote:
Jonas Höglund wrote:
Since it seems there are many supporters for arrow-like symbols pointing
in either direction, and both of these groups seem to think the symbol
points in the wrong direction if it isn't the direction
On Mar 3, 2012, at 2:24 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
let sub = sup : {p:1, q:2};
This one has been one my least-objectionable options.
let sub = sup ~ {p:1, q:2};
Doesn't work; ~ is a unary operator.
let sub = sup {p:1, q:2};
Has a pretty strong not equal to connotation.
let sub = sup
On Mar 3, 2012, at 6:54 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
I like, though + is a little easier on the eyes.
Ambiguous. + is a unary operator.
One argument for the wrong direction being wrong: if A : B is common math
syntax for A is a subtype of B, if you turn the arrow around it'd read A is a
On Mar 3, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Quildreen Motta wrote:
- sounds too much like return (local or not).
And it's ambiguous. - is a unary operator.
Dave
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
+1 for - syntax.
El 03/03/2012, a las 21:26, Herby Vojčík escribió:
Jonas Höglund wrote:
Since it seems there are many supporters for arrow-like symbols pointing
in either direction, and both of these groups seem to think the symbol
points in the wrong direction if it isn't the
If we’re taking votes:
-1. I would actively avoid using this in my own ES6 code, because of the
unnecessary confusion it would cause to those coming from CoffeeScript.
From: Carlos Prado García
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 17:58:38
To: es-discuss
Subject: Re: How about replacing | with -
+1
On Mar 3, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Dean Landolt wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
This argument seems to over-reach. C and C++ use - for pointer indirection.
Perl uses - for method calls.
This is precisely why it can't really be overloaded any
On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have it
available for some possible future function shorthand?
Using - for the proto-of operator effectively also removes the ability to
use = as function shorthand later, due
language
that actually requires JS itself to exist? I don't think it should matter
either way...
*From:* Carlos Prado García
*Sent:* Saturday, March 03, 2012 17:58:38
*To:* es-discuss
*Subject:* Re: How about replacing | with -
+1 for - syntax
None of the syntax options presented so far seem to be winning. Would not
specifying the prototype somewhere *inside* of the object literal also be
an option? If so, would anyone like to take a crack at that?
khs
___
es-discuss mailing list
On Mar 3, 2012, at 8:00 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
None of the syntax options presented so far seem to be winning. Would not
specifying the prototype somewhere *inside* of the object literal also be an
option? If so, would anyone like to take a crack at that?
We already explored that path
Dean Landolt wrote:
Does it /have/ to be ascii?
Does it have to be grawlix? I proposed
let sub = sup beget {p:1, q:2, r:3};
a while back, and we discussed alternative contextual keywords. Grawlix
appears to result in (a) strong anti-grawlix reaction from a good part
of the community; (b)
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com wrote:
Some examples of this usage of - include:
MyObject.prototype - {a:1,b:2}
appArrayBehavior-[0,1,2,3,4,5]
let subclass = superclass - function () {};
var p = newRegExpMethods - /[a-m][3-7]/
What do you
The direction is wrong. It’s what I like most about | – that it’s graphical,
intuitive and indicates a direction.
Is there a list of symbols that have already been rejected? I still like |
best (better than a word such as beget or proto), followed by ~ and :
On Mar 2, 2012, at 23:30 , Allen
Allen, that link brings me to the About this wiki page
Rick
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
The direction is wrong. It’s what I like most about | – that it’s
graphical, intuitive and indicates a direction.
Is there a list of symbols that have already
with corrected link to wiki page:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proto_operator#suggestion_to_replace_with
On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
It was recently suggested to me that it is unlikely that we will ever adopt -
as as function expression shorthand
Thanks - This looks really nice!
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.comwrote:
with corrected link to wiki page:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proto_operator#suggestion_to_replace_with
On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Sorry, I actually meant to ask a question: Isn’t the direction of - wrong?
It was recently suggested to me that it is unlikely that we will ever adopt
- as as function expression shorthand symbol and that this means we could
consider using that symbol sequence for other purposes. In
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have it
available for some possible future function shorthand?
Both = and - have strong associations with function shorthands from C#,
Scala, C++, Java 8, Perl, CoffeeScript, ML, Haskell and more. Whether or not
JavaScript
On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Sorry, I actually meant to ask a question: Isn’t the direction of - wrong?
It's a matter of opinion. UML thinks that | points is pointing in the right
direction (towards the more general object). However, a lot of people think
about
On Mar 2, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Luke Hoban wrote:
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have it
available for some possible future function shorthand?
Both = and - have strong associations with function shorthands from C#,
Scala, C++, Java 8, Perl, CoffeeScript,
What do you think? Do you like - better than | ? Is it ok to not have
it available for some possible future function shorthand?
Both = and - have strong associations with function shorthands from C#,
Scala, C++, Java 8, Perl, CoffeeScript, ML, Haskell and more. Whether or
not
It's a matter of opinion. UML thinks that | points is pointing in the
right direction (towards the more general object).
I thought about the [[Prototype]] property pointing from the “prototypee” to
the prototype. And of the way prototype (property lookup) chains go from
prototypees to
I'm with Luke here. We shouldn't abuse a common idiom from other
languages, including upstream ones such as CoffeeScript.
Kris's suggestion of + changed to deal with the wrong direction
criticism (which I find compelling since the [[Prototype]] property is a
reference):
let sub = sup +
66 matches
Mail list logo
