Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://github.com/tc39/proposal-call-this/issues/10 below:

Bikeshedding syntax · Issue #10 · tc39/proposal-call-this · GitHub

2022-03 plenary bikeshedding slides

Would human readers often have difficulty with determining the syntax’s grouping?

Is the syntax significantly improve conciseness over the status quo?

Is the syntax’s word order more natural (e.g., subject.verb(object)) than the status quo?

Is there a risk of beginners and other developers confusing the syntax with regular dot property access?

Is there a risk of developers confusing the syntax with visually similar syntaxes from other languages – especially if they have different semantics?

Does the syntax greatly overlap with other features of the language?
(Note: A finding from the January post-plenary overflow meeting says, “In general, some overlap is okay, but too much is bad; we have to decide this on a case-by-case basis.”)

This style was originally called “bind-this”, but we dropped function binding from it in 2022-03, so we renamed the style to “receiver first”.

rec :> fn(arg0)
rec ~> fn(arg0)
rec !> fn(arg0)
rec -> fn(arg0) 
rec #> fn(arg0)
rec ~~ fn(arg0)

This style was originally called “bind-this”, but we dropped function binding from it in 2022-03, so we renamed the style to “receiver first”.

rec:>fn(arg0)
rec~>fn(arg0)
rec->fn(arg0)
rec::fn(arg0)
rec:.fn(arg0)
rec-.fn(arg0)
rec..fn(arg0)

rec~[fn](arg0)
rec![fn](arg0)
rec#[fn](arg0)
rec..[fn](arg0)

This style was originally called “call-this”, but we are now calling it “function first” to distinguish it from receiver-first call-this. See the original explainer by @tabatkins.

First proposed by @rbuckton.

@rkirsling brought up in Matrix a few days ago the reasonable concern that -> may still be confusing to beginners with ..

I would be GENUINELY scared at making every beginner worry about "was it . that I'm supposed to write? but there's also ->..."

-> is a charged symbol. It has precedent as “method call” in Perl and PHP, but this proposal is for an operator that simply “changes the receiver of a function”, which is related but different.

I’m not a huge fan of ::, since that reads as “namespacing” to me, but I plan to tentatively switch back from -> to :: before the October plenary. There’s also ~> and ~~ as possibilities. I don’t have any better ideas for its spelling right now.

zhangenming, Ginden and kawazoe

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4