please add x .= f()

[Jordan Harband]

For that, you'd do `if (s.charAt(0) === '/') { s = s.slice(1); }` - which
is only slightly more verbose than your example, without the burden of new
syntax.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Soni L. <fakedme+es at gmail.com> wrote:

> Welp I keep replying this wrong (how should I configure my email client?)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It /could/ in theory be used like this:
>
> function path(s) {
>   if (s.charAt(0) == '/') { s.=substring(1); }
>   // your stuff here
> }
>
>
> On 10/08/15 04:50 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> not only it's badly readable and reminds me the PHP string concatenation,
> but it promotes different type assignment which is a performance, and
> virtually strongly typed, anti-pattern.
>
> I think Brendan said already it all, the proposal is badly described, and
> it solve pretty much nothing in the real world.
>
> Probably we can just move on and ignore the list of -1 we'll all put in?
> ;-)
>
> Best Regards
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:46 PM, <myemailum14 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please no, while i can see how logically it's derived from a = a + 1
>>
>> a = a.f()
>>
>> a .= f()
>>
>> seems like a bad idea
>>
>> i can hardly see the dot
>> why would i replace the object from which i'm calling the method in most
>> cases looks inefficient
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Brendan Eich < <brendan at mozilla.org>
>> brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Do not send "Please add" messages with two-line, half-baked sketches of
>>> extensions to the language. That's just injecting noise with very little
>>> signal.
>>>
>>> The "-1" you received will be the answer if pressed from everyone on
>>> TC39, I would bet real money. Syntax is expensive, adding it for little
>>> semantic gain and some downside user-confusion risk (plus a small
>>> complexity tax hike for the language in full) is never the right answer.
>>>
>>> That you can scratch this itch (and many others like it) via sweet.js
>>> does not argue for incorporating any such =. or .= operator into the core
>>> language. Analyze developer patterns and nearby languages for better
>>> candidate extensions that solve more serious usability or greater issues.
>>>
>>> /be
>>>
>>>
>>> Florent FAYOLLE wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>> x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
>>>>>
>>>>> x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1! I've made some weeks ago a prototype of this in sweet.js:
>>>> https://github.com/fflorent/member-access-assignment
>>>>
>>>> Except that the syntax is rather =. (I have probably been influenced by
>>>> the CoffeeScript's existential operator). The reverse looks fine to me too.
>>>>
>>>> -1 Please no :)
>>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Florent
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing listes-discuss at mozilla.orghttps://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
> --
> Disclaimer: these emails are public and can be accessed from <TODO: get a non-DHCP IP and put it here>. If you do not agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150810/15c1fadd/attachment.html>