Short Comparing proposal

[T.J. Crowder]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Jeremy Darling <jeremy.darling at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is an interesting concept, but reuse of ()'s and : will make it
> difficult to pin down, scale to other operators and communicate.  Really
> the "inclusion" operator needs to be something that stands out, doesn't
> break existing spec, and won't kill new specs.
>

Completely agreed. The trick is finding that something. We're definitely
out of single-character options, so something along the lines you describe
would be better. `$` is probably not going to be an option as the lead
character, as it's an identifier character.

I don't know how the process works, though. Is it too early to be thinking
about syntax? The first question probably has to be whether it's worth
exploring new syntax in this area at all, *then* exploring what that syntax
might be...

-- T.J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170202/27c64908/attachment.html>