Novel operator syntax

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Oct 29 11:25:07 PDT 2013


Tristan Zajonc wrote:
> Sorry, at most I'm only proposing every *existing* operator prefixed 
> by ., not new operators.  So things like
> .+, ./, .*, .-., .%, .==, .!=, .>, .<, etc.  These would be called dot 
> operators.  This is all that's required by the
> technical computing use case.

Why is the dot needed, though?

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list