That hash symbol

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Mar 25 11:24:05 PDT 2011


No problem -- just don't provoke Zeus to unleash the Crock-en ;-).

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-February/012761.html

/be

On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:

> 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/c12206fc/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list