suggestion: mapping symbolic infix ops to binary functions

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Jul 23 08:53:32 PDT 2012

Claus Reinke wrote:
>>> At the same time, new infix operators keep getting proposed.
>> Where?
> Here on es-discuss, and on the wiki?
> symbolic:
> <|, ??, ??=, ?., .=, .{

Ok, but <| died due to grawlix/typography and (mainly) __proto__. And .{ 
faced many objections and does not fit into any eager evaluation calling 

?? and ??= are short-circuiting, they do not fit into a eager evaluation 
calling convention.

> named:
>    modulo, div, divmod, has, extends

These are much better as methods. Polyfillable, but also not subject to 
weird line terminator restrictions on the left. Same arguments killed 

> I've probably missed some - there seems to be a steady
> trickle of such proposals.

I think the trickle has been unsteady and it is trailing off -- and for 
strong reasons.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list