Alternative syntax for <|
dean at deanlandolt.com
Sat Nov 19 11:38:04 PST 2011
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
> > but given the overall disapproval of the exact syntax of the <|
> operator, I think its at least a little more obvious what is going on.
> Sorry to be coming late to this thread.
> I think the above statement is a false characterization to use to start
> this discussion. There are some who disapprove of <| or other similar
> special character formulation of this operator. There are other who like it
> a lot. Certainly there isn't "overall" disapproval. However, we can't
> really even tell whether there is majority (of what population??) approval
> or disapproval. At best, all you can legitimately say is that there is not
> universal approval of the <| token.
I was under the impression that TC39 generally operates by consensus. As
you note, there are some who disapprove -- if *some* is a
non-inconsequential number wouldn't this constitute *overall disapproval*?
FWIW I'm indifferent to the syntax, but it reads just fine to me. Still,
I'm sure there's something better lurking. Especially if it's true that
since it's infix it could be nearly anything. IMHO "begets" is pretty
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss