Sorry Nathan but how is this different from extending Object prototype? you
are basically polluting everywhere `::` operator, can't see any less
conflictual scenario than just "polluting the `.` one" in terms of prototype
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Nathan Wall <nathan.w...@live.com> wrote:
> I have a syntax proposal, but it goes along with a slightly different way
> of thinking of this.
>
> The proposed bind operator[1] can take a function which acts as a method
> and make a call to it with a specific receiver without the receiver needing
> to have the method defined as a property (basically a nicer syntax for
> `call` and `apply`). Given a bind operator, this problem reduces to just
> having a way to take a function and turn its first argument into its
> `this`. So good syntax can be achieved in two steps.
>
> Steps:
> 1. Turn the function into a method.
> 2. Invoke with bind operator.
>
> To solve step 1, we could have something like `Function.curryThis` which
> does the opposite of "uncurryThis":
>
> Function.curryThis = function(f) {
> return function(...args) {
> return f(this, ...args);
> };
> };
>
> Example use:
>
> // ES5
> Array.from(obj);
>
> // Proposal
> var toArray = Function.curryThis(Array.from);
> obj::toArray();
>
> Another example:
>
> // ES5
> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(window.HTMLFormElement.prototype,
> 'elements').get;
>
> // Proposal
> var getOwnPropertyDescriptor =
> Function.curryThis(Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor);
> window.HTMLFormElement.prototype::getOwnPropertyDescriptor('elements');
>
> Perhaps sugar could be added to do both steps in one with another operator
> (say `:::`).
>
> // ES5
> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(window.HTMLFormElement.prototype,
> 'elements').get;
>
> // Proposal
>
> window.HTMLFormElement.prototype:::Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor('elements');
>
> It's the same proposal as yours with slightly different syntax. And I
> think the syntax makes some sense given a bind operator `::`.
>
> [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:bind_operator
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:04:52 -0400
> Subject: Re: Syntactic sugar for using a function as if it were a method
> of its first argument
> From: jstpie...@mecheye.net
> To: claude.pa...@gmail.com
> CC: es-discuss@mozilla.org
>
>
> It's fairly incomprehensible to me, and doesn't really have any advantages
> over writing it out the long way:
>
> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(window.HTMLFormElement.prototype,
> 'elements').get
>
>
> window.HTMLFormElement.prototype{Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor}('elements').get
>
> They're both the same line length. I find the former more direct and the
> latter more confusing. Namely, the whole ('elements') looks like a method
> call containing one argument, rather than having a secret hidden argument
> as its first.
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> Often a function can be thought as if it were a method of its first
> argument. Compare:
>
> Array.from(obj); /* vs */ obj.toString()
> Object.getPrototypeOf(obj); /* vs */ obj.__proto__
> Array.forEach(obj, func); /* vs */ obj.forEach(func)
> Math.clz32(num); /* vs */ num.toFixed(2)
>
> and note the inversion of the order of the terms.
>
> So, I propose to introduce syntactic sugar to replace the terms in correct
> order, e.g.,
>
> foo{Bar.baz}(...args)
> // or (to be bikeshed)
> foo.{Bar.baz}(...args)
>
> as a synonym of:
>
> Bar.baz(foo, ...args)
>
> Here are two examples of use:
>
>
> window.HTMLFormElement.prototype{Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor}('elements').get
>
>
> document.querySelectorAll('input[type=checkbox][name=Select_ID]:checked').{Array.from}().map(e
> => e.value).join(',')
>
> The wins are:
> * a strict left-to-right order, instead of having methods appearing
> alternatively at the right and at the left of its main operand, thus
> improving readability;
> * enabling the use of the Existential Operator for the new form, e.g.:
>
>
> window.HTMLFormElement?.prototype?{Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor}('elements')?.get
>
> (Note that `?{` suffers from the same grammar problem as `?[` and `?(`,
> and the due fix for the two latter would also fix the former.)
>
> —Claude
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jasper
>
> _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
