Default operator strawman - ||| rather than ??

Herby Vojčík herby at
Sat Jun 16 01:46:00 PDT 2012

Herby Vojčík wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> In fact, I don't think I was pushing any particular syntax. I think I
>>> was clear about asking _whether_ people saw value in the semantics of
>>> it, not the syntax. It's fine if people don't see value; is there a
>>> problem with asking the question?
>> I was describing the hazards of adding syntax that "wouldn't hurt".
>> Syntax should be added only when it clearly helps:
>> * It brings new semantics not expressible in the language (let, const,
>> modules, generators).
>> * It is an affordance without new semantics for a common pattern that's
>> verbose and error-prone when open-coded.
> I'm from different school of thinking which is probably very incovenient
> in spec-thinking. But I feel strongly that there should be one more
> category:
> * It is an affordance with very little or no new semantic for an
> uncommon pattern which by its formalizing and makes "godel-accessible"
> (in the sense "comprehensible by one's mind") space covered by the
> language much greater.
> (I'm talking about mixins / traits, mustache+richer data semantics, ...
> Things that can be done, but the price is hard, so they are not used.
> But that goes directly against "paving the cowpath" and "no novelties".
> Basically what I am advocating here probably are novelties. :-/ )
>> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list