Two dots are (in some contexts) the descendant access operator in E4X, so that might have had something to do with the decision.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Claus Reinke <claus.rei...@talk21.com>wrote: > Btw, why three dots? I always find myself writing two dots.. >>> >> >> Presumably because three dots make an ellipsis, which has roughly the >> meaning we're aiming for here. >> > > True, and I admit to omitting that third dot in natural language > as well. But in the context of JS, if I think of ... as the anonymous > ellipsis (just leaving something out, no variable binding), then ..var > seems natural for the not-quite ellipsis that binds a variable, and ...var > feels too long (and too much like natural language ellipsis, which would > have no association with the word before or after). > > I'll probably manage to adjust once ES6 implementations are > more common, but I thought I'd mention it;-) > > Claus > > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
