Syntax sugar for partial application

liorean liorean at
Sun Apr 12 21:15:38 UTC 2015

On 12 April 2015 at 17:39, Jussi Kalliokoski
<jussi.kalliokoski at> wrote:
>> No, «this» is lexically bound to be that of the enclosing lexical
>> scope in arrow functions, so it would be whatever that is. But that
>> doesn't really matter as the function call to «foo» doesn't use the
>> «this» of the arrow function.
> Exactly why you get `null` as `this`.

Which makes the behaviour identical to that of the code as you wrote it.

>> Now, if we were to say your «foo» were actually «», and you did
>> the same replacement in the arrow function, the «this» value of the
>> «bar» call would be «foo», so that's pretty much what is wanted as
>> well. The case where this breaks is if you were to replace only the
>> «bar» method with the arrow function, in which case it would use the
>> lexical «this» instead of «foo», but that's obviously not the right
>> transformation to use.
>> > This might not seem like such a big deal until you consider it in
>> > combination with the proposed bind syntax [1].
>> >
>> > Also in your examples, redefining `foo` will lead to different results.
>> > The
>> > placeholder syntax has a lot more room for optimization in the JIT
>> > compiler
>> > (the partially applied result is guaranteed to have no side effects for
>> > example, so the compiler can create a version of the original function
>> > where
>> > it can inline the specified arguments; less moving parts, easier to
>> > optimize).
>> Yeah, it's susceptible to that problem, yes. Do you want me to fix
>> that for you if you really want it?
>> Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «((f,a)=>f(1,a,2))(foo)».
>> Your «foo(?, 1, ???);» is equivalent to «((f,a,...b)=>f(a,1,...b))(foo)».
>> Your «foo(1, ???, 2);» is equivalent to
>> «((f,...a)=>f(...[1,...a,2]))(foo)».
> Your new examples directly execute the function instead of creating a new
> function. :) Which goes to show how it would be nice to have specific syntax
> for this to make it more obvious what's happening.

Oops. I needed to actually add that extra argument as a separate fat arrow,
   «(f=>(...a)=>f(...[1,...a,2]))(foo)» etc.

> I write my code pretty much the same way. However, it's hard for the
> compiler to trust that you're not changing things, regardless of style.

Guess it'd be hard for it unless it has the knowledge of whether
functions are pure or not, yes.

I'd love for a compiler that can tell that I don't modify my arguments
and thus optimises code like
let map= // Usage: map(function)(...array)

So that it doesn't actually create the «tail» array every recursion,
just a narrower and narrower subarray of the same actual array, and
likewise that the only thing that is done with «acc» is the production
of an array that is identical to it with an addition of one element at
its end, so doesn't break it down and rebuild it every recursion. And
of course tail call optimisation on it, because that code is horrid
without those optimisations.
David "liorean" Andersson

More information about the es-discuss mailing list