That hash symbol

Mike Samuel mikesamuel at
Sat Mar 26 10:11:22 PDT 2011

2011/3/26 Wes Garland <wes at>:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:33 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, David Foley wrote:
>> > My response was simply this : assuming normative scope in conversational
>> > tone, that I would welcome is a venue where
>> end users (engineers and architects as well as scripters) could contribute
>> to the developer experience of using JavaScript
> I was going to suggest comp.lang.javascript, but I just had a look and it
> seems to have been taken over by DOM questions and spam.  David, why don't
> you start an "ES Tech" group or something, and ban questions which aren't
> related to JS? (Copy your charter from comp.lang.c, maybe).  Announce it
> here, and I will subscribe. Probably even participate.

I'd be happy to participate too.

If the goal is to, as Kevin suggested, provide an early vetting
service of ideas as to how the language *should be* by people who know
have a detailed knowledge of how the language *is*, would a ticket
system be more appropriate/additionally useful?  A ticket system might
use scarce attention better since it is 1:1, not 1:n.

>> Kevin Smith started this thread by objecting to #, and that's fair. It's a
>> bit chicken-scratchy. If we can find a better introductory keyword or formal
>> parameter bracketing form, I'm game.
> I like Doug's florin idea from an aesthetic POV, but I have two problems
> with it -- suddenly, I have to care what charset my editor is using -- but
> more importantly, I can't figure out how to type it on my Sun keyboard or on
> my Windows box. Also, what of JS which is delivered on the web using
> something other than unicode?
> Allowing both is an interesting option, but then I remember how annoying
> ANSI tri-graphs were (history lesson for !brendan: not all terminals had {,
> C programs allow ??< instead) and realise that would be a mistake.
> I, too, find #(a,b) but frankly, there aren't many lead-char solutions which
> aren't ugly, easy to type, and not used by identifiers (or as operators)
> already.  What have we got to chose from?  I think `@#%^&* -- none of these
> are measurably better than # and some are worse. Maybe you could make the
> point that & looks like a melted lambda. But I see no point in bike shedding
> over this.
> Non leading-char solutions have the disadvantage of using some other kind of
> bracketing -- e.g.  `a,b { return a + b; }` -- I don't find syntax like this
> clear from a coder's POV, and there is the re-tooling issue with
> highlighting editors and the ability to trivially transform between the
> styles for faster adoption and old code minification -- while these issues
> certainly shouldn't be deciding factors for TC39 it is nice that
> leading-char lparen...rparen makes most of them go away.
>> > You do yourself a disservice by assuming idiocracy.
> I don't think Brendan ever assumed that this place is governed by idiots.
> Wes
> --
> Wesley W. Garland
> Director, Product Development
> PageMail, Inc.
> +1 613 542 2787 x 102
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list