prototype for operator proposal for review
brendan at mozilla.com
Wed May 18 10:34:39 PDT 2011
On May 18, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On May 18, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> On May 18, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> On May 18, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>>> In the end, these are just symbols and JS programmer are just going to have to learn their meaning. Existing conventions, if they exist, and analogous do impact initial learnability but in the long run I don't know if it makes much a difference as long as they aren't prone to keyboarding hazards.
>>> The precedents matter a bit, even if we try to create a new idiom. The problem is < not | (although doesn't that look too light in Helvetica on either side?).
>> I don't think :> works, as you say. It looks like crap, frankly, in too many fonts. However, does |> not work?
> |> could work but I think we agree that the object literal (or array or function for that matter) really needs to be on the right for readability. In that case |> seems to be point ingin the wrong direction from any of the perspectives: UML generalization, [[Prototype]] pointer direction, type specialization...
Gotcha, I'm sold. It's an idiom.
I will go play TMBG "Particle Man", the "Triangle Man" verse.
More information about the es-discuss