Partial Expression proposal

Sebastian Cholewa sebastian.cholewa at interia.eu
Wed Dec 27 21:30:04 UTC 2017


On PC writing “§” character wouldn’t be convenient, as it’s not on  
keyboard. One would has to copy and paste it. I see this as problematic.  
Writing code should not require any extra acrobatics with set of  
characters.

To be more constructive, available characters are:  
!@#$%^&*()_+-=[]{};:'",<.>/?

W dniu .12.2017 o 21:56 Tamás Halasi <trusted.tomato at gmail.com> pisze:

> Hmm I see. I'll definitely remove the multiple ? marks and keep it one
> level.
> And change the # to something else... For example, §.
> With these changes, is there anything which should be changed?
>
> 2017-12-27 21:17 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>:
>
>> My concern: I get the concept, and could see how at the first level
>> (e.g. `#? + ?`) it could be useful, but I can tell you that this
>> doesn't look especially obvious, and starts to look almost like the
>> line noise of some Perl or APL [1]/J [2]/etc.:
>>
>> ```
>> // Example 1:
>> let foo = #foo(#???:??)
>>
>> // Example 2:
>> let constant = ##??
>>
>> // Example 3:
>> let makeAdder = ##?+??
>> ```
>>
>> And I agree with Mike in that it does remind me of De Bruijn indices.
>> Those are nice in binary encodings, but they tend to start looking
>> like line noise after sufficient depth. (An entire esoteric language
>> has been formed based on this whole thing: Binary Lambda Calculus
>> [3].)
>>
>> Oh, and this will most *certainly* conflict with the stage 3 private
>> property proposal:
>>
>> ```js
>> let bar = () => console.log("outer")
>> class Foo {
>>     #bar = () => console.log("inner")
>>
>>     method() {
>>         // Should this return a thunk or log "inner"?
>>         list.map(##bar(1, 2, ?))
>>     }
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language)
>> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language)
>> [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20161019165606/https://en.
>> wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_lambda_calculus
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Isiah Meadows
>> me at isiahmeadows.com
>>
>> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
>> Send me an email and we can get started.
>> www.isiahmeadows.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tamás Halasi <trusted.tomato at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> This sentence ends abruptly.  What would this proposal improve?
>> >
>> > Oops, I accidentally pressed Send...
>> > So, it would improve functional programming in general, the examples  
>> are
>> in
>> > the README.
>> >
>> >> Is this lambdas with De Bruijn indices?
>> >
>> > Hmm, I haven't heard of them yet, but by looking at the surface, they
>> seems
>> > to be similar.
>> >
>> >> You have ?? and ??? for referring to outer layers.  Is there no
>> ambiguity
>> >> there?
>> >
>> > That's a very good point! I haven't thought of that. I can't think of  
>> a
>> > solution, the lookahead is indeed very bad. I opened an issue. I think
>> the
>> > notation (for accessing arguments from outer layers) will have to be
>> changed
>> > / removed.
>> >
>> > Thanks for the feedback! :)
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > es-discuss mailing list
>> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> >


More information about the es-discuss mailing list