New Proposal: Placeholder syntax

Herbert Vojčík herby at
Sun Dec 2 20:45:24 UTC 2018

I find the "receiver" usage actually pretty useful. I know how I like to 
be able to do something like

   Smalltalk packages do: #commit

in Amber Smalltalk (even if it would be only a few chars longer

   Smalltalk packages do: [ :each | each commit ]

but readability is different, b/c the spirit of it is different, latter 
being explicitly imperative).

If partial application would win (why not), I would like to come up with 
receiver case as well in some other way. For example as:

   .x / .f()

instead of

   each => each.x / each => each.f()

IOW, would it be at least possible to sort-of future-proof ".xyz" for 
this kind of use?


Tab Atkins Jr. wrote on 28. 11. 2018 21:00:
> Aside from the fact that this "placeholder" proposal addresses the
> "receiver" and "operator" cases that partial-application explicitly
> omits, the two proposals are exactly identical. They're not
> "complementary", they're the same thing, just making a different
> decision wrt complexity of some of the syntax cases. >
> ~TJ
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list