Novel operator syntax
tristan at senseplatform.com
Tue Oct 29 16:51:41 PDT 2013
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> I would love to have a way to write function calls infix. That may cover
>> your use case as well. That is (strawman syntax):
>> arg1 #func arg2
>> would be syntactic sugar for
>> func(arg1, arg2)
>> Advantages: more versatile, less grawlixy.
> # is pure grawlix. It's also one of the few ASCII punctuators left, so
> wanted otherwise.
> Problem: would make much more sense with multiple dispatch (dynamic
>> dispatch over the arguments), but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards for
> The operators stuff I've been developing uses a variant of multimethod
> Operators cannot be usable if spelled #add, so we must support all the
> built-in ones I've talked about (see http://www.slideshare.net/**
> BrendanEich/js-resp <http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp>).
> Whether we need element-wise operators is really what this thread is about
> (I think, based on Tristan's spinout). Arbitrary infix named operators IMHO
> want another thread, and also later. Design means leaving things out (N.
Both operators and element-wise operators really benefit from Brendan's
multiple dispatch proposal. Julia has used this approach to great effect.
I'm not opposed to it, but I don't believe there's a compelling need for
arbitrary infix operators in the technical computing domain. The
motivation for elementwise operators is to allow for a clean matrix API
that would make JS best-of-bread for numerical computing. A secondary
benefit is that it could provide a cow path towards high performance BLAS
backed matrix operations making it to the browser sometime far in the
future. Any suitably lightweight syntax would work, although +: has some
things to recommend it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss