Do not send "Please add" messages with two-line, half-baked sketches of
extensions to the language. That's just injecting noise with very little
signal.
The "-1" you received will be the answer if pressed from everyone on
TC39, I would bet real money. Syntax is expensive, adding it for little
semantic gain and some downside user-confusion risk (plus a small
complexity tax hike for the language in full) is never the right answer.
That you can scratch this itch (and many others like it) via sweet.js
does not argue for incorporating any such =. or .= operator into the
core language. Analyze developer patterns and nearby languages for
better candidate extensions that solve more serious usability or greater
issues.
/be
Florent FAYOLLE wrote:
Hello,
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
+1! I've made some weeks ago a prototype of this in sweet.js:
https://github.com/fflorent/member-access-assignment
Except that the syntax is rather =. (I have probably been influenced
by the CoffeeScript's existential operator). The reverse looks fine to
me too.
-1 Please no :)
Why?
Florent
_______________________________________________
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
