That hash symbol

Kevin Smith khs4473 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 10:39:49 PDT 2011


Sure - no offense or time-wasting intended.


On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> It's totally ambiguous.
>
> Suggestion: do not mail syntax ideas without working through (pencil and
> paper, Jison/Bison/Antlr/something, or better) the grammar.
>
> More specific suggestion: don't bikeshed function syntax without a new
> prefix character or a convincing top-down parsing story. If you don't know
> what top-down vs. bottom-up means, find out first.
>
> /be
>
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
>
> > 2011/3/25 David Foley <davi.fol at gmail.com>:
> >> Implicit functions?
> >>
> >> globalMethod(argument)
> >> {
> >>     // implementation
> >> };
> >> AnObject.prototype.method(value)
> >> {
> >>     // whatevs
> >> };
> >
> > Is this a proposed syntax?
> >
> > If so, in the presence of semicolon insertion, isn't this ambiguous with
> >
> > globalMethodCall(argument);
> > {
> >  // block
> > }
> > ;  // noop
> > AnObject.prototype.methodCall(value);
> > {
> >  // another block
> > }
> > ;  // noop
> >
> >
> >> On 25 Mar 2011, at 17:28, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, boogers!  : )
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Mike Samuel <mikesamuel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2011/3/25 Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com>:
> >>>> As a simple matter of taste, I find the # symbol to be quite ugly and
> >>>> have
> >>>> been thinking of alternatives for shortening function expression
> syntax.
> >>>> In working with my own wonky version of promises, I continue to make
> the
> >>>> same typing error over and over again.  This is something like what I
> >>>> mean
> >>>> to type:
> >>>> obj.doSomething().then(function(val, err)
> >>>> {
> >>>>     ...
> >>>> });
> >>>> But I find myself typing this instead:
> >>>> obj.doSomething().then(val, err)
> >>>> {
> >>>>     ...
> >>>> });
> >>>> The problem isn't so much the extra typing of the "function" keyword,
> >>>> but
> >>>> the profusion of parens.  I'd like to suggest the following form
> >>>> instead.
> >>>> obj.doSomething().then(<val, err>
> >>>> {
> >>>>     ...
> >>>> });
> >>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but since expressions cannot start with "<",
> >>>> this
> >>>> shouldn't present any problems for a top-down parser.  Is that right?
> >>>
> >>> Does this cause ambiguities with E4X ?
> >>>  https://developer.mozilla.org/en/e4x
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> khs
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> es-discuss mailing list
> >>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110325/84be3a8c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list