Syntax sugar for partial application

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 13:16:47 UTC 2015


FWIW: agreed with others, it looks a pretty pointless sugar.
It doesn't seem to bring anything new or "that needed" to the language.

-1 here

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, liorean <liorean at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we really need it?
> Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «a=>foo(1,a,2)».
> Your «foo(?, 1, ???);» is equivalent to «(a,...b)=>foo(a,1,...b)».
> Your «foo(1, ???, 2);» is equivalent to «(...a)=>foo(...[1,...a,2])».
>
> Also, the ? token is already taken by the ternary conditional
> operator. Do we really want to overload it here for a nullary
> operator/special form, when we have as low overhead syntax as we
> already do in fat arrows for doing the exact same thing?
> --
> David "liorean" Andersson
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150409/2e7983b5/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list