strawman for the := operator

Brendan Eich brendan at
Thu Aug 9 21:00:09 PDT 2012

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> Well, strictly speaking the object literal that is the RHS of the 
> above example is /defining/ properties on a new object and those the 
> properties of that object are then /assigned/ to corresponding 
> properties of the LHS object.

Of course, but see below.

> Regardless, the associations between the symbols and the semantics 
> don't have to be perfect they just have to be close enough to have 
> some mnemonic value.

Here I think you're going to run into trouble. The syntax has to be 
pretty sweet to meet general acclamation in the community and to achieve 
consensus in TC39.

Language design involves conservative reuse of older languages' design, 
some cross-cutting thinking that ideally makes maximum use of a few 
cleanly composing primitives, and no mercy for "close enough (but not 
quite right)". Symbology is not arbitrary, or no more arbitrary than 
history and tradition in the relevant CS subculture.

Yes, JS is in the C family so it has some unusual (to those not 
native-born to C or JS) parts. Idioms arise in all practical languages.

But .= is not the clear "assign not define" winner, and := is quite 
different from Algol et al. (Pascal, Ada), and Smalltalk (thanks for 
reminding me). If the goal is batch assignment, then writing the batch 
parts as property definitions in an object literal is mixing "define" 
with the outer, later "assign", and .= misplaces the dot. The batch 
assignment proposal goes the other way:

   obj.{ prop1 = val1; prop2 = val2 ... }

with a more statement-like grammar within braces, yet without recreating 

I don't know that batch assignment will achieve consensus. The semantics 
with nested .{...} occurrences is more powerful than .=, which doesn't 
handle nesting (neither does := AFAICT). Whatever the semantics, getting 
syntax past the various taste-testers and grammar buffs is a tall order. 
I don't think "perfect" is possible but I do think "close enough to have 
some mnemonic value" is not sufficient.

If batch assignment including nesting is the winning semantics, the 
syntax probably follows and can't use .=. So reserving .= based on := 
(which is not yet in Harmony) seems premature. Sorry to push back, but 
after mustache I think we need to be pickier about new syntax.

And (to beat my favorite drum) we must not starve the 
polyfillable/no-new-syntax API alternatives (Object.assign, 
Object.define or Object.update) in the mean time, where new syntax is 
not required by new semantics.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list