Okay... Maybe not CoffeeScript (don't normally use it), but I know a few
notable derivatives have that (particularly Coco and LiveScript).
As for the idea itself, still a -1 from me. Unless we add an equivalent for
every binary operator, it's not much of an addition. It's just another
special
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
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
--
Disclaimer: these emails are public and can be accessed from TODO: get a non-DHCP
IP and put it here. If you do not agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.
___
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
I want to +1 the -1, but I'll add a
Please no
instead as well.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Bucaran jbuca...@me.com wrote:
-1 Please no :)
On Aug 11, 2015, at 2:40 AM, Soni L. fakedme...@gmail.com wrote:
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x
-1 Please no :)
On Aug 11, 2015, at 2:40 AM, Soni L. fakedme...@gmail.com wrote:
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
--
Disclaimer: these emails are public and can be accessed from TODO: get a
non-DHCP IP and put it here. If you
For that, you'd do `if (s.charAt(0) === '/') { s = s.slice(1); }` - which
is only slightly more verbose than your example, without the burden of new
syntax.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Soni L. fakedme...@gmail.com wrote:
Welp I keep replying this wrong (how should I configure my email
Not sure if trolling...
On Monday, 10 August 2015, Soni L. fakedme...@gmail.com wrote:
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h() should be x = x.f().g().h()
--
Disclaimer: these emails are public and can be accessed from TODO: get a
non-DHCP IP and put it here. If you
had same feeling just reading the initial email ... fakedme+es@ ...
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Alexander Jones a...@weej.com wrote:
Not sure if trolling...
On Monday, 10 August 2015, Soni L. fakedme...@gmail.com wrote:
x .= f() should be syntax sugar for x = x.f()
x .= f().g().h()
Please no, while i can see how logically it's derived from a = a + 1
a = a.f()
a .= f()
seems like a bad idea
i can hardly see the dot
why would i replace the object from which i'm calling the method in most
cases looks inefficient
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Brendan Eich
not only it's badly readable and reminds me the PHP string concatenation,
but it promotes different type assignment which is a performance, and
virtually strongly typed, anti-pattern.
I think Brendan said already it all, the proposal is badly described, and
it solve pretty much nothing in the
Isiah Meadows schrieb:
That's not really the point.
The suggestion is this instead:
```js
if (s[0] === '/') s = s.slice(1);
if (s[0] === '/') s .= slice(1);
```
This already exists in CoffeeScript and most derivatives/dialects.
```coffee
s .= slice 1 if s[0] is '/'
```
Don't know of any
That's not really the point.
The suggestion is this instead:
```js
if (s[0] === '/') s = s.slice(1);
if (s[0] === '/') s .= slice(1);
```
This already exists in CoffeeScript and most derivatives/dialects.
```coffee
s .= slice 1 if s[0] is '/'
```
Don't know of any other languages that have an
I vote for no. There is no performance gain and I can hardly see anyone
using it.
Em seg, 10 de ago de 2015 às 22:18, Isiah Meadows isiahmead...@gmail.com
escreveu:
That's not really the point.
The suggestion is this instead:
```js
if (s[0] === '/') s = s.slice(1);
if (s[0] === '/') s .=
14 matches
Mail list logo
