Arrow binding

Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Tue Apr 24 15:53:56 PDT 2012


Using a builtin function (as opposed to an operator) would be less problematic if one could invoke it infix, e.g.:

     this (extend) { x: x, y: y }

But I guess deciding on that will have to wait until operator overloading gets figured out.

On Apr 25, 2012, at 0:43 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> 
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> 
>>> B. add expression bodies to method shorthands, don't add skinny arrow
>>> 
>>>    (-) Loses the flexibility of shorthand syntax for assigning to an existing object, a Tab pointed out. (Sorry Axel, mustache is not particularly Harmonious.)
>> 
>> Sorry to hear that. _.extend(), then (by whichever name)? As long as this operation can be performed in some manner...
> 
> or we need to find mustached harmony, perhaps with some slight syntax change.  The utility of .{ seems to be showing up fairly frequently in these discussions and also fits quite nicely with max-min classes for both instance and class property definition.
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120425/c9befdad/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list