On June 12, 2018 11:32:22 AM GMT+02:00, Aadit M Shah <aaditms...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>Actually, from a parsing perspective I believe it shouldn't be too
>difficult to implement the `lazy name: expression` syntax. In
>addition, I'm not too keen on your `lazy name() { return expression;
>}` syntax because:
> 1. It's more verbose.
> 2. It seems to me that it's no different than creating a regular
> getter:
>
>const take = (n, xs) => n === ? null : xs && { head: xs.head,
>get
>tail() { const value = take(n - 1, xs.tail);
>Object.defineProperty(this, "tail", { configurable: false,
>get: () => value }); return value; } };
I am pretty sure Andrea mixed syntax of lazy getter with its implementation for
brevity, and the actual lazy getter would look like:
lazy tail() { return take(n - 1, xs.tail); }
>Regarding the second bullet point, I've probably misunderstood what you
>were trying to convey. Perhaps you could elucidate.
>Anyway, making the property non-configurable after accessing it seems
>like a reasonable thing to do.
Here I disagree. No syntax construct so far forces immutability. The get x() /
set x() ones are configurable. If you defined lazy getter so far by get(), you
could have changed it using Object.defineProperties if there was some strange
need for it. You had to explicitly freeze etc. or defineProperty with
configurable false if you wanted to make it so.
This autofreezing if the value sticks out out this philosophy of " malleable
unless specified otherwise".
>
>On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, at 3:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>> My 2 cents,
>> I use lazy getters since about ever and I'd love to have such
>syntax
>> in place but I think there is room for some improvement /
>> simplification in terms of syntax.>
>> *## Keep it get*ish**
>>
>> From parsing perspective, introducing `lazy tail()` seems way simpler
>> than introducing `lazy tail:` for the simple reason that everything
>> that can parse `get tail()` and `set tail()` is in place already in
>> every engine. I don't write them but I'm sure having an extra
>keyboard
>> to catch shouldn't be crazy complicated.>
>> *## class compatible*
>>
>> because you used `delete this.tail` and mentioned functional
>> programming, I'd like to underline ES doesn't force anyone to one
>> programming style or another. That means new syntax should play
>nicely
>> with classes too, and in this case the proposal doesn't seem to
>> address that because of the direct value mutation, as generic
>> property, and the removal of that property from the object, something
>> not needed if inherited.>
>> My variant would do the same, except it would keep the value an
>> accessor:>
>> ```js
>> const take = (n, xs) => n === 0 ? null : xs && {
>> head: xs.head,
>> lazy tail() {
>> return Object.defineProperty(this, 'tail', {
>> configurable: false,
>> get: (value =>
>> // still a getter
>> () => value
>> )(
>> // executed once
>> take(n - 1, xs.tail)
>> )
>> }).tail;
>> }
>> };
>> ```
>>
>> This would keep initial accessor configuration, in terms of
>> enumerability, but it will freeze its value forever and, on top of
>> that, this will play already well with current valid ES2015
>> classes syntax.>
>> I also believe myself proposed something similar a while ago (or
>> somebody else and I agreed with that proposal) but for some reason it
>> never landed.>
>> Hopefully this time the outcome would be different.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Aadit M Shah
>> <aaditms...@fastmail.fm> wrote:>> __
>>> Hello TC39,
>>>
>>> I recently opened an issue[1] in the tc39/ecma262[2] repository,
>>> proposing a new syntax for lazy getters, and I was directed to the
>>> CONTRIBUTING[3] page which stated that I should start a conversation
>>> on this mailing list.>>
>>> So, my feature proposal is to have syntactic sugar for creating lazy
>>> getters[4]. To summarize my original proposal (which you can read by
>>> following the very first link above), I find that creating lazy
>>> getters is very verbose. For example, consider:>>
>>> const take = (n, xs) => n === ? null : xs && {
>>> head: xs.head,
>>> get tail() {
>>> delete this.tail;
>>> return this.tail = take(n - 1, xs.tail);
>>> }
>>> };
>>>
>>> My proposed solution is to add a new keyword lazy to the language.
>>> This keyword can only be used as a prefix to longhand property names
>>> in object initializers, and it defers the execution of the value
>>> expression until the property is accessed. In short, it's just
>>> syntactic sugar for lazy getters:>>
>>> const take = (n, xs) => n === ? null : xs && {
>>> head: xs.head,
>>> lazy tail: take(n - 1, xs.tail)
>>> };
>>>
>>> This is purely syntactic sugar. The semantics of this new syntax
>>> would remain the same as that of the desugared syntax. In
>particular,
>>> calling Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(list, "tail") would return
>an
>>> accessor descriptor before accessing list.tail and a data descriptor
>>> afterwards.>>
>>> Furthermore, there are other advantages of having this syntactic
>>> sugar. For example, creating cyclic data structures becomes much
>>> easier. Examples are provided in my original proposal which is
>linked
>>> above. Hope to hear your thoughts on this.>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Aadit M Shah
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>
>
>Links:
>
> 1. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/1223
> 2. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262
> 3. https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
>4.
>https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/get#Smart_self-overwriting_lazy_getters
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
