operator overloading proposal

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Wed May 11 06:53:09 UTC 2016


Efficiency and optimization. If you're stupid enough to want to violate
those priorities in a public API, it's your own fault. But if you want to
optimize updating a collection (i.e. zero allocation update for a
persistent map) or increment a vector by another without having to create
an intermediate vector, you'll want to implement the assignment operator as
well as the standard math operator.

On Wed, May 11, 2016, 02:46 Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would you ever want to violate the algebraic properties of operators,
> such that `a += b` wasn't exactly equivalent to `a = a + b`, `a *= b` not
> equivalent to `a = a * b`, etc? I'm quite confident that any proposal that
> allowed for that would get tons of pushback.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1. Yes, they would be inherited, but not on the prototype itself (it
>> would technically be parasitic). It would be modeled with internal slots,
>> so that the properties are themselves immutable and transparent, so the
>> only way to inherit would be via the class syntax or `Reflect.construct`.
>> Engines could model this similarly to prototypes internally, while still
>> appearing to conform to spec, since there's no other way to access the
>> function without explicit reference via a decorator. And if it's not
>> decorated, you can transparently fast path the calls automatically and
>> optimize the function at compile time for exactly the number of arguments
>> (any different is a syntax error, like with getters and setters).
>>
>> 2. I'm intentionally trying to avoid any semantics that would rely on
>> adding more values to the global scope. First, it's harder to optimize a
>> `hasOwnProperty` check. Second, when you allow properties to be dynamically
>> added, you make it impossible to lower `foo + bar` to a single instruction
>> if they're both numbers, because someone can change the Number prototype to
>> have one of the operators on it, and now, the assumption, previously
>> prevalent, is now invalid. Third, we shouldn't need to add 15+ new symbols
>> to accommodate a simple operation.
>>
>> 3. If it's pure syntax, you won't have the edge cases of `x += y` having
>> to desugar to `x = x[Symbol.assignPlus](y)` and so on. You just look for an
>> `[[OpAssignPlus]]` on `x`, and if it exists, call it as `x.[[OpAssignPlus]](y)`.
>> Else, you check for `[[OpPlus]]`, and set `x` to `x.[[OpPlus]](y)`. If
>> neither exists, you fall back to the old algorithm. This can be easily
>> optimized by the fact engines only need to check this if the value is an
>> object. Numbers and strings don't have this slot.
>>
>> Note: If the right side has an operator defined, but the left side
>> doesn't, and if the operator checked for isn't an assignment one, the right
>> side's operator is checked and called. Or basically, beyond assignment, the
>> mere existence of a slot takes precedence over no slot, to make
>> transitivity easier with primitives. To clarify, in the below case:
>>
>> ```js
>> class C {
>>     constructor(x) { this.x = x }
>>     operator +(x) {
>>         if (x instanceof C) {
>>             return this + x.x * 2
>>         }
>>         return this.x + x
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> assert(new C(1) + 1 === 1 +1)
>> assert(1 + new C(1) === 1 + 1)
>> assert(new C(1) + new C(2) === 1 + 2*2)
>> assert(new C(2) + new C(1) === 2 + 1*2)
>> ```
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 01:27 Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know at creation
>>> time whether the object has overloaded
>>> > operators. It's much simpler for the engine to figure out, and it's
>>> more performant because you only need to
>>> > check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, own properties,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Will operators defined on a class work with instances of a subclass?
>>>
>>> > Could += be a special case? i.e.,
>>>
>>> For sure.  We could define `Symbol.assignPlus`, `Symbol.assignTimes`,
>>> etc. with `u += v;` desugaring to `u = u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)`.  The
>>> reason why we can't do something do `u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)` is that
>>> there's no way to define a method on Number, String, etc. that would
>>> reassign their value.
>>>
>>> > it appears to me that overloading an operator multiple times (e. g.
>>> unary/binary plus operator) might become
>>> > painful, assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic approach
>>> that regular functions do.
>>>
>>> Another pain point is handling cases where you want one class to
>>> interoperate with another.  In one of the example above methods are defined
>>> that allow `Point`s and `Number`s to be added to each other.  In order to
>>> maintain the commutativity of `+` we need to define `operator+` /
>>> `[Symbol.add]` methods on both `Point` and `Number`.  One potential
>>> solution to this problem is create `Symbol.plusRight`, `Symbol.timesRight`
>>> for all of the commutative/symmetric operators.
>>>
>>> I feel like this ends up making things more complex because there are
>>> more methods to implement and the methods have to be more complex b/c they
>>> have to do type checking when overloaded.
>>>
>>> Maybe `operator+` could work like the `@operator` decorator by calling
>>> `Function.defineOperator` behind the scenes.  In this situation, instead of
>>> methods being added to classes, the `Function` object has well-defined
>>> methods that look up the correct function to call based on the argument
>>> types.  `u + v` desugars to `Function[Symbol.plus](u, v)`.  This is
>>> definitely slower than internal slots, but if we're doing runtime type
>>> checking in the method we may as well have it be automatic.  My hope is to
>>> eventually use static typing (flow b/c I'm using babel) to remove the
>>> lookup cost.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're correct in that the operator doesn't do any type checking (it
>>>> dispatches from its first argument, but that's just traditional OO).
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016, 20:28 kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> @Isiah: Comparing your syntax proposal to `Function.defineOperator`,
>>>>> it appears to me that
>>>>> overloading an operator multiple times (e. g. unary/binary plus
>>>>> operator) might become painful,
>>>>> assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic approach that
>>>>> regular functions do.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is, of course, unless you intend to handle all operator overloads
>>>>> in a single `operator +(...args) {}`
>>>>> definition. But then again, something like `Function.defineOperator`
>>>>> seems cleaner and suggests implicit
>>>>> (optional?) type checks with its second argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2016 15:25:32 CEST Isiah Meadows wrote:
>>>>> > Here's my thought, if we go with syntax.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ```js
>>>>> > class Point {
>>>>> >     // constructor, etc.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     operator +(other) {
>>>>> >         assert(other instanceof Point)
>>>>> >         return new Point(
>>>>> >             this.x + other.x,
>>>>> >             this.y + other.y)
>>>>> >     }
>>>>> >
>>>>> >     operator +=(other) {
>>>>> >         assert(other instanceof Point)
>>>>> >         this.x += other.x
>>>>> >         this.y += other.y
>>>>> >     }
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > ```
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 11:16 Brian Barnes <ggadwa at charter.net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > A note on this from somebody who's entire existence seems
>>>>> dedicated to
>>>>> > > stopping as much stuff as possible from getting GC'd, the example
>>>>> below:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >  >const u = new Point(5, 10);
>>>>> > >  >const v = new Point(1, -2);
>>>>> > >  >
>>>>> > >  >const w = u + v;  // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v)
>>>>> > >  >console.log(w);   // { x: 6, y: 8 };
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Could += be a special case?  i.e.,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > u+=v;
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > would call:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Class Point { ... other stuff ...
>>>>> > > [whatever the syntax is](pt)
>>>>> > > {
>>>>> > > this.x+=pt.x;
>>>>> > > this.y+=pt.y;
>>>>> > > }
>>>>> > > }
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > instead of desugaring to:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > u=u+v;          // which would cause the creation of an object and
>>>>> > >                 // leave the other to be collected
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > For all I know, += might be doing such anyway in some engines, but
>>>>> for
>>>>> > > my stuff which is a lot of 3D math that could be a performance
>>>>> killer.
>>>>> > > It would be nice to be able to just add points and such, as long
>>>>> as the
>>>>> > > overhead is negligible.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > [>] Brian
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On 5/10/2016 10:52 AM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
>>>>> > > > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know at
>>>>> creation
>>>>> > > > time whether the object has overloaded operators. It's much
>>>>> simpler for
>>>>> > > > the engine to figure out, and it's more performant because you
>>>>> only need
>>>>> > > > to check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, own
>>>>> > > > properties, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Also, it would be IMHO easier to read than a symbol (the computed
>>>>> > > > property syntax is ugly IMO). Using a different concept than
>>>>> symbols
>>>>> > > > would also fit better with value types whenever any of those
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> > > > make it into the language (either the struct or special syntax).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 04:03 G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com
>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller%2Bes-discuss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >     Yes, I think exposing operators through well-known symbols
>>>>> is an
>>>>> > > >     interesting idea worthy of more exploration because it's
>>>>> precisely
>>>>> > > >     the purpose of well-known symbols to expose and allow
>>>>> manipulation
>>>>> > > >     to previously inaccessible internal language behaviors.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >     On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Barabash
>>>>> > > >     <kevinb at khanacademy.org <mailto:kevinb at khanacademy.org>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         > And remember that decorators are essentially just a
>>>>> syntax to
>>>>> > > >         apply functions to objects/classes at design time, so
>>>>> what
>>>>> > > >         you're proposing is essentially some new global
>>>>> function, which
>>>>> > > >         is going against the current trend and effort to better
>>>>> > > >         modularize/namespace all these utility functions/methods.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         That's a really good point.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         > It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous places
>>>>> over the
>>>>> > > >         years, you can find more info on this with some casual
>>>>> googling.
>>>>> > > >         For example:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         Thanks for the link.  I played around with sweet.js a
>>>>> bit over
>>>>> > > >         the weekend.  Using macros should work if we went with
>>>>> Python
>>>>> > > >         style operator overloading.  Instead of defining methods
>>>>> like
>>>>> > > >         _ADD_, _SUB_ etc. we could create some well-known
>>>>> symbols, maybe
>>>>> > > >         Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         ```
>>>>> > > >         class Point {
>>>>> > > >           constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > >             Object.assign(this, {x, y});
>>>>> > > >           }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >           [Symbol.add](other) {
>>>>> > > >             return new Point(this.x + other.x, this.y + other.y);
>>>>> > > >           }
>>>>> > > >         }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         const u = new Point(5, 10);
>>>>> > > >         const v = new Point(1, -2);
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         const w = u + v;  // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v)
>>>>> > > >         console.log(w);   // { x: 6, y: 8 };
>>>>> > > >         ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         This would require default implementations to be defined
>>>>> on
>>>>> > > >         Object.prototype for Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:38 PM, G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > >         <balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com
>>>>> > > >         <mailto:balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             > Why not? The standard defines well-known symbols.
>>>>> Maybe
>>>>> > > `@operator` could be a well known decorator (assuming decorators
>>>>> get
>>>>> > > approved).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             Well... you make something into the standard with
>>>>> proposals,
>>>>> > > >             not why-nots, so in order to make that happen you
>>>>> need to
>>>>> > > >             draft another proposal for well-known decorators. And
>>>>> > > >             remember that decorators are essentially just a
>>>>> syntax to
>>>>> > > >             apply functions to objects/classes at design time,
>>>>> so what
>>>>> > > >             you're proposing is essentially some new global
>>>>> function,
>>>>> > > >             which is going against the current trend and effort
>>>>> to
>>>>> > > >             better modularize/namespace all these utility
>>>>> > > >             functions/methods. And maybe a new mechanism could be
>>>>> > > >             drafted for these new well-known decorators, so that
>>>>> we can
>>>>> > > >             hide these new functions somewhere... but by now I
>>>>> hope it's
>>>>> > > >             becoming clear that it's introducing way too much new
>>>>> > > >             surface area for the language in exchange for one
>>>>> small
>>>>> > > feature.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             > I haven't seen any proposals for macros, could you
>>>>> post a
>>>>> > > link?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous
>>>>> places over
>>>>> > > >             the years, you can find more info on this with some
>>>>> casual
>>>>> > > >             googling. For example:
>>>>> > > >             https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Barabash
>>>>> > > >             <kevinb at khanacademy.org <mailto:
>>>>> kevinb at khanacademy.org>>
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 I should update the demo code to show the
>>>>> `@operator`
>>>>> > > >                 decorator in addition to
>>>>> `Function.defineOperator`.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 Initially I started out with just the `@operator`
>>>>> > > >                 decorator, but that meant that each class would
>>>>> have to
>>>>> > > >                 have knowledge of each of the classes it might
>>>>> want to
>>>>> > > >                 interact with before hand.  Having a separate
>>>>> > > >                 `defineOperator` function avoids this situation.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 It means that prototype style classes must be
>>>>> converted
>>>>> > > >                 to the new class syntax before operator
>>>>> overloading
>>>>> > > >                 could be used.  Lastly, there may be some cases
>>>>> where it
>>>>> > > >                 makes sense to overload operators with existing
>>>>> 3rd
>>>>> > > >                 party code or built-in classes, e.g. adding set
>>>>> > > >                 operations to Set using operator overloading.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 > It's also apparent that the `@operator
>>>>> decorator` part
>>>>> > > >                 of the proposal is an effort trying to address
>>>>> this
>>>>> > > >                 issue, but it really is not the responsibility
>>>>> of the
>>>>> > > >                 standard to try to define such a thing.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 Why not?  The standard defines well-known
>>>>> symbols.
>>>>> > > >                 Maybe `@operator` could be a well known decorator
>>>>> > > >                 (assuming decorators get approved).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 Slide 15
>>>>> > > >                 from
>>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp shows
>>>>> > > >                 syntax for defining operators in value types
>>>>> which could
>>>>> > > >                 be adapted as follows for regular classes:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 ```
>>>>> > > >                 class Point {
>>>>> > > >                    constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > >                        this.x = +x;
>>>>> > > >                        this.y = +y;
>>>>> > > >                    }
>>>>> > > >                    Point + Number (a, b) {
>>>>> > > >                        return new Point(a.x + b, a.y + b);
>>>>> > > >                    }
>>>>> > > >                    Number + Point (a, b) {
>>>>> > > >                        return new Point(a + b.x, a + b.y);
>>>>> > > >                    }
>>>>> > > >                    Point + Point (a, b) {
>>>>> > > >                        return new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y);
>>>>> > > >                    }
>>>>> > > >                 }
>>>>> > > >                 ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 Having to define `+` twice for `Point + Number`
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > >                 `Number + Point` seems like busy work, but maybe
>>>>> it's
>>>>> > > >                 better to be explicit.  What are you thoughts
>>>>> about this
>>>>> > > >                 syntax?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 > Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there
>>>>> are too
>>>>> > > >                 much quirks/conventions in the proposal that feel
>>>>> > > >                 non-evident and non-flexible which is destined
>>>>> to trip
>>>>> > > >                 people over from time to time. It would be great
>>>>> to make
>>>>> > > >                 a proposal that's simple and don't include too
>>>>> much
>>>>> > > >                 assumptions.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 Could you elaborator what quirks/conventions
>>>>> might trip
>>>>> > > >                 people up?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 > Finally, I'm not sure about the current status
>>>>> of
>>>>> > > >                 macros, but last I heard of it, they say it's
>>>>> going to
>>>>> > > >                 make its way into the standard pretty soon (TM),
>>>>> and
>>>>> > > >                 macros can do much of the things overloading
>>>>> could, and
>>>>> > > >                 much more.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 I haven't seen any proposals for macros, could
>>>>> you post
>>>>> > > >                 a link?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM, G. Kay Lee
>>>>> > > >                 <balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com
>>>>> > > >                 <mailto:balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     I'd say it's way too early to ask for a
>>>>> champion on
>>>>> > > >                     this because just a quick skimming revealed
>>>>> a lot of
>>>>> > > >                     places that didn't add up. For example, the
>>>>> proposal
>>>>> > > >                     suggested that overloading is primarily
>>>>> targeted at
>>>>> > > >                     making it easier to work with user-defined
>>>>> classes,
>>>>> > > >                     but curiously a `Function.defineOperator()`
>>>>> method
>>>>> > > >                     is proposed instead of some syntax that
>>>>> feels more
>>>>> > > >                     tightly integrated with the class definition
>>>>> syntax.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     class Point {
>>>>> > > >                         constructor(x, y) {
>>>>> > > >                             Object.assign(this, { x, y });
>>>>> > > >                         }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                         toString() {
>>>>> > > >                             return `(${this.x}, ${this.y})`;
>>>>> > > >                         }
>>>>> > > >                     }
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     Function.defineOperator('+', [Point, Point],
>>>>> (a, b)
>>>>> > > => new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y));
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     ```
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     The demo code made this flaw evident - it
>>>>> looks like
>>>>> > > >                     a giant step backward to define an instance
>>>>> method
>>>>> > > >                     like this, don't you agree?
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     It's also apparent that the `@operator
>>>>> decorator`
>>>>> > > >                     part of the proposal is an effort trying to
>>>>> address
>>>>> > > >                     this issue, but it really is not the
>>>>> responsibility
>>>>> > > >                     of the standard to try to define such a
>>>>> thing.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     What I'd suggest is that perhaps you should
>>>>> rethink
>>>>> > > >                     your proposed syntax and redesign it to
>>>>> become an
>>>>> > > >                     extension of the ES6 class definition syntax.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there
>>>>> are too
>>>>> > > >                     much quirks/conventions in the proposal that
>>>>> feel
>>>>> > > >                     non-evident and non-flexible which is
>>>>> destined to
>>>>> > > >                     trip people over from time to time. It would
>>>>> be
>>>>> > > >                     great to make a proposal that's simple and
>>>>> don't
>>>>> > > >                     include too much assumptions.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     Finally, I'm not sure about the current
>>>>> status of
>>>>> > > >                     macros, but last I heard of it, they say
>>>>> it's going
>>>>> > > >                     to make its way into the standard pretty
>>>>> soon (TM),
>>>>> > > >                     and macros can do much of the things
>>>>> overloading
>>>>> > > >                     could, and much more.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                     On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kevin
>>>>> Barabash
>>>>> > > >                     <kevinb at khanacademy.org
>>>>> > > >                     <mailto:kevinb at khanacademy.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                         I forgot to mention in my last email
>>>>> that I'm
>>>>> > > >                         looking for a champion for this proposal.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                         On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Kevin
>>>>> Barabash
>>>>> > > >                         <kevinb at khanacademy.org
>>>>> > > >                         <mailto:kevinb at khanacademy.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             Hi everyone,
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             I've been working on implementing
>>>>> operator
>>>>> > > >                             overloading and would like to submit
>>>>> a
>>>>> > > proposal.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             I think operator overloading would
>>>>> be a
>>>>> > > >                             useful addition to the language.  In
>>>>> > > >                             particular I think it would be
>>>>> useful for
>>>>> > > >                             defining operations on common
>>>>> mathematical
>>>>> > > >                             object types such as complex numbers,
>>>>> > > >                             vectors, matrices, and sets.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             I've create a working prototype that
>>>>> > > >                             consists of:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                               * babel plugin that rewrites
>>>>> operators as
>>>>> > > >                                 function calls
>>>>> > > >                               * a polyfill which defines these
>>>>> functions
>>>>> > > >                                 and which call the correct
>>>>> > > >                                 argument-specific function based
>>>>> on the
>>>>> > > >                                 arguments' prototypes
>>>>> > > >                               * Function.defineOperator which
>>>>> can be
>>>>> > > >                                 used to define which function an
>>>>> > > >                                 operator should use for the
>>>>> specified
>>>>> > > types
>>>>> > > >                               * "use overloading" directive
>>>>> which allows
>>>>> > > >                                 users to opt-in
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             More details can be found
>>>>> > > >                             at
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading.
>>>>> > > >                             The babel plugin can be found
>>>>> > > >                             at
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/babel-plugin-operator-overloading
>>>>> .
>>>>> > > >                             I also have a demo project at
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading-demo.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             The design was inspired by some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> > > >                             slides from
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                             – Kevin
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >                         es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >                         es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>> > > >                         <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >                     es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >                     es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> > > es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >                     https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >                 _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >                 es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >                 es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >                 https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >             _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >             es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >             es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:
>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >             https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >         _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >         es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >         es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>>>> > > >         https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > >     _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > >     es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> > > >     es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: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 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160511/a09032f3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list