operator overloading proposal

John Lenz concavelenz at gmail.com
Sat May 21 20:34:45 UTC 2016


The Closure Compiler type checker just special cases .bind unfortunate.  My
experiment to make the type checker extensible to avoid special cases (the
Type Transformation Language) works but is too complex for normal usage.
On May 20, 2016 7:44 PM, "Isiah Meadows" <isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe, maybe not - it largely depends on how TypeScript and ES end up
converging, and how the efforts for strong typing (like floats, longs,
structs, etc.) end up. Also, TypeScript has quite a few warts remaining,
including with its type system. For example, there's no way at the moment
to properly type check `Function.prototype.bind`, you have to either have
variadic generics with up to two arguments or a Turing-complete type
system.

But on the other hand, -1 for a new directive, though. They're ugly, and
most the community's leaders agree. And I highly doubt we will need them.

On Fri, May 20, 2016, 19:34 Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org> wrote:

> Good point.  In my original post I mentioned introducing a `"use
> overloading"` directive.  We could throw when trying to use this directive
> with the `"use asm"` directive.
>
> We can definitely wait on this.
>
> Definitely looking forward to static typing.  Is
> https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types the proposal to be following?
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is a valid concern. As good as having this feature might sound,
>> could this discussion be revisited after static types are addressed and we
>> see how WebAssembly pans out? The reason I ask the latter is because of the
>> above concern about asm.js, which WebAssembly aims to replace in an IMHO
>> far superior way. Depending on the uptake of WebAssembly a few years down
>> the road, it may later become practical to break forward compatibility in
>> that way due to lack of usage. It's not a common use case, though, to send
>> an object of unknown type to an asm.js function, and replacing native
>> methods fails validation, so the risk isn't as high as it might seem.
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016, 12:36 John Lenz <concavelenz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have some concerns. With the short circuiting operators:
>>>
>>>       Commutative operators, +, *, &&, ||, &, |, ^, automatically flip
>>> the order of operands when their types are different.
>>>
>>> && and || can not "flip" and routing them through a method is not
>>> compatible with short-circuiting.
>>>
>>> Generally, there are a lot of things that can go wrong in interop with
>>> existing code: unlike some other languages in JavaScript operators are
>>> often used to coerse to a know type:   "+value" to a number, "x|0" to  an
>>> 32-bit integer, etc.  These kinds of guarantees are what "asm.js" is based
>>> on, for example, and having to wait until type feedback is available to
>>> perform its optimizations is likely to be a non-starter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I'm thinking, instead, static methods should be used. It would be
>>>> more versatile.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea of passing both operands as arguments (mainly from an
>>>> aesthetics/symmetry point of view), but I can't think of case where it
>>>> would be more versatile than instance methods seeing as at least one
>>>> argument has to be `this`.  Could you give an example of when this would be
>>>> more versatile?
>>>>
>>>> Since the new syntax is describing what each type should be, maybe we
>>>> could leverage existing type syntax from Flow/TypeScript.
>>>>
>>>> ```js
>>>> class Vec2 {
>>>>     constructor(x, y) {
>>>>         this.x = x
>>>>         this.y = y
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     operator+ (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) {
>>>>         return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y)
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     operator+ (x: Vec2, y: number) {
>>>>         return new this(x.x + y, x.y + y)
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     operator+= (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) {
>>>>         x.x += y.x
>>>>         x.y += y.y
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     operator+= (x: Vec2, y: number) {
>>>>         x.x += y
>>>>         x.y += y
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     // #number += this -> x = x + this
>>>>
>>>>     operator- (x: Vec2) {
>>>>         return new this(-x.x, -x.y)
>>>>     }
>>>>
>>>>     // etc...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> class Vec3 {
>>>>     // ...
>>>>     operator+ (x: Vec3, y: Vec2) {
>>>>         return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y, x.z)
>>>>     }
>>>>     // etc...
>>>> }
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If both have the operator, the left side would be used (I thought I
>>>>> said that, but I may have not). I'm thinking, instead, static methods
>>>>> should be used. It would be more versatile.
>>>>>
>>>>> ```js
>>>>> class Vec2 {
>>>>>     constructor(x, y) {
>>>>>         this.x = x
>>>>>         this.y = y
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     // `this` and `Vec2` are interchangeable
>>>>>     operator this + this(x, y) {
>>>>>         return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     operator this + #number(x, y) {
>>>>>         return new this(x.x + y, x.y + y)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     operator this += this(x, y) {
>>>>>         x.x += y.x
>>>>>         x.y += y.y
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     operator this += #number(x, y) {
>>>>>         x.x += y
>>>>>         x.y += y
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     // #number += this -> x = x + this
>>>>>
>>>>>     operator -this(x) {
>>>>>         return new this(-x.x, -x.y)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>
>>>>>     // etc...
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> class Vec3 {
>>>>>     // ...
>>>>>     operator this + Vec2(x, y) {
>>>>>         return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y, x.z)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     // etc...
>>>>> }
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> A few notes on this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. If an operator doesn't reference `this` or the containing class at
>>>>> least once, an early error is thrown.
>>>>> 2. To reference a primitive, you use the hash symbol + the typeof
>>>>> value. The valid ones include `#string`, `#boolean`, `#number`, `#symbol`,
>>>>> `#object`, `#function`, and `#undefined`. If value types with custom
>>>>> `typeof` values are introduced, you have to reference the type directly.
>>>>> 3. All type references must be either `this`, identifiers, or member
>>>>> expressions that do not reference `this`. It is an early error otherwise.
>>>>> Member expressions are evaluated at class definition time as well, so that
>>>>> can produce visible side effects if a proxy is referenced or a getter is
>>>>> called.
>>>>> 4. The operators are checked via `instanceof`. This means, for those
>>>>> that define operators, the behavior can become visible to previous code if
>>>>> the other type specified has a static `Symbol.hasInstance` method.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I provided the `this` alias is for anonymous classes, so
>>>>> you can create anonymous objects. It's also helpful in case you have a
>>>>> longer class name (possibly by convention) that you now don't have to type
>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2016, 01:17 Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Isiah: Great points.  One potential edge case though:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```js
>>>>>> class A {
>>>>>>     operator+ (other) { }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> class B {
>>>>>>     operator+ (other) { }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> const a = new A();
>>>>>> const b = new B();
>>>>>> const c = a + b;
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case where both the left and right side have `[[OpPlus]]` do
>>>>>> we prefer the left side?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > But, do we really need operator overloading? A method can be used
>>>>>> instead, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Dawid: Suppose I create a class to represent complex numbers that
>>>>>> looks like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ```js
>>>>>> class Complex {
>>>>>>     constructor(re, im) {
>>>>>>          Object.assign({ }, { re, im });
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>     add(other) {
>>>>>>         return new Complex(this.re + other.re, this.im + other.im);
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>     ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I might want to create instance of `Complex` with plain old numbers
>>>>>> or I might want to use `BigNumber` instances.
>>>>>> Without operator overloading this means that I would have add methods
>>>>>> to `Number.prototype` or wrap each number
>>>>>> in an object with methods.  Neither of which are particular appealing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Isiah Meadows <
>>>>>> isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the current state of things. I think the main issue at hand
>>>>>>> is ergonomics. Haskell, the MLs, and Swift solved it by allowing inline
>>>>>>> functions and operators as functions (that wouldn't work in a dynamic
>>>>>>> language). Scala solved it by magic methods for unary operations and the
>>>>>>> fact nearly every character is a valid identifier for binary ones (JS can't
>>>>>>> use that because of back compat issues). Lua, Ruby, Python, and Kotlin
>>>>>>> solved it by using magic methods. C++ solved it with the `operator`
>>>>>>> keyword.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 03:26 Dawid Szlachta <
>>>>>>> dawidmj.szlachta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, do we really need operator overloading? A method can be used
>>>>>>>> instead, I think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2016-05-11 8:53 GMT+02:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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/20160521/439736da/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list