A standard module library is something I've been wanting in ECMAScript proper for a while, now. It doesn't necessarily have to be in ECMA-262 itself, but it would be nice to have somewhere. It's come up several times already in this list, even as far back as 2012, when the module with syntax concept was first thought of. It's just a fantasy that hasn't been realized yet. It would make new features a little easier to add, though, and I would actually rate a standard module implementation a little higher in importance than most of the more recent ideas, in my personal opinion.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Bob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > What has been the discussion if any about having "standard" libraries, with > well-defined behavior and included in the engine, but which must be imported > to use to avoid collisions and backward incompatibility? In theory the > import could also result in new methods on standard prototypes. Eg > > ```js > import 'std::Functional'; > var _add = ((a, b) => a + b).currify(); > > import * as Fn from 'std::Functional'; > var _add = Fn.currify((a, b) => a + b)); > > import currify from 'std::Functional'; > var _add = currify((a, b) => a + b)); > ``` > > This approach could also possibly be used for `Op`. > > -- > Bob > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:17 AM, Michael McGlothlin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Having Op for all operator functions would be a good call. Probably better >> than adding Bitwise, Logic, etc just from the point of view of not filling >> up the namespace to much. I think short names would be fine so long as they >> were readable. So leftShift could be lShift but lsh is probably to >> mysterious. Even operator-like functions without an actual operator assigned >> would make sense I think so no reason not to include pow. A general purpose >> casting operator/func would be good I think but not sure if there is a point >> to specialized ones just to numbers, strings, and whatnot. >> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> That might work, although these two might need edited for consistency: >>> >>> - Math.pow === Op.pow (assuming `**` gets in) >>> - Op.num should be similar to `x => +x`, not `x => ToNumber(x)`. The >>> behavior is slightly different, but can be observable without modifying >>> `Number`, I believe. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 14:43 Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > I like the idea, but could the function names be made a little >>>> > shorter? I'd like to at least save some characters on it. Example: >>>> > `(a, b) => a > b` is 15 characters, where `Math.greaterThan` is 16. >>>> > >>>> > For comparison, I also have equivalent versions for the colon-preceded >>>> > operators >>>> > >>>> > Here's some naming ideas I have: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> At that point, though, the use of the Math namespace starts getting >>>> weird. Equality and Logical aren't mathematical; Bitwise mostly isn't >>>> either. (It can sometimes be used to do mathy things, like using >>>> shift to mul/div by a power of 2, but that's not its core purpose.) >>>> >>>> Put them on a new Op namespace object, or into an Op built-in module. >>>> Even shorter, and clearer! >>>> >>>> ~TJ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > -- Isiah Meadows _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
