I should probably read other threads too about this, but is `Symbol('+')` a
typo and it should be a property like any other well known `Symbol` so that
it's actually `Symbol['+']`, `Symbol['~']`, and others? AFAIK invoking
Symbol passing a string should create a named Symbol, and not a special one.
Thanks for any sort of clarification.
Best Regards
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Coroutines <corouti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How I imagined *binary* operator invocation would work is this:
>
> Our example: a + b
>
> If a or b is an object we try to look for an overloaded operator to
> call like so:
>
> (a[Symbol('+')] || b[Symbol('+')])(a, b)
>
> ^ disregard that I'm assuming both a and b are objects I can index safely
>
> Okay, so turns out neither a nor b have an overloaded operator for
> '+'. We default to calling the normal operator handler that coerces
> with valueOf() as necessary.
>
> To me this seemed rather simple.. Operators would just be defined
> like: some_object[Symbol('~')] = function (lhs, rhs) { ... }
>
> The only confusion I see is if we want to define explicitly the
> postfix or prefix form of unary operators like ++. I don't know what
> I'd call them as symbols.
>
> I always saw overloading operators with Symbols, but you could just
> have reserved member names on the prototype of the object as well ~
> '++operator' similar to C++ ?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
