"Approx-equal" operator

Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com
Tue Dec 27 04:22:40 PST 2011


So, so? Just to be clear and to close the topic -- do we need it or -- no
answer means "no" answer? Don't tell me then (in the future, in an year)
that I didn't propose this idea before ;D

Dmitry.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov <
dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jorge, yes, similarly this conclusion was in my memory too.
>
> Dmitry.
>
>
> On 19.12.2011 13:53, Jorge wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2011, at 10:10, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
>>
>>> Have we already planned paren-free calls? Seems I missed approved
>>> strawman.
>>>
>>
>> Only for block lambdas, if I'm not mistaken:
>>
>> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/**014595.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014595.html>
>> >
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>>> 3) Should paren free calls be introduced?
>>>
>> I'm not proposing this in general, and I do not believe anyone else on
>> TC39 will.
>>
>> /be
>> </quote>
>>
>>
>> There's this too:
>> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/**014587.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014587.html>
>> >
>>
>> <quote>
>> "You're ignoring the goal of providing paren-free block-argument call
>> syntax for control abstractions that look like built-in control-flow
>> statements."
>> </quote>
>>
>> The thread was "block lambda revival":
>> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/**
>> thread.html#14563<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/thread.html#14563>
>> >
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111227/4c0333b7/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list