Good point - between that and your previous message, I withdraw the label idea.
/be
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 10, 2013, at 7:47 PM, "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote:
>
> Also
>
> function f(args: x, y, z) {
>
> will suggest to TypeScript readers that the parameter "args" has type "x".
>
>
>
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>> Hi Brendan and Allen, you are both responding only to my point #1. I consider my point #2 --- cognitive load of the reader on encountering a rarely seen construct --- to be the more significant criticism here.
>>
>> On these grounds, your
>>
>> function f(args: x, y, z) {
>>
>> is worse. Given how ":" is already used in JS, this suggests that "args" is either a label name, which the more astute reader can easily disqualify, or a property name, suggesting some shorthand for named parameters.
>>
>> Note that I am not saying that the meanings of all syntactic constructs have to be guessable with no guidance. But the rarely used ones do.
>>
>> 3) Awkward syntax for some rarely used cases is the price of good syntax for common cases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> On the other hand, we are this close in ES6 to relieveing people from having to use arguments at all.
>>>
>>> I like the intention behind Allen's idea. To defend the concrete syntax a bit, one would argue that only the final formal parameter may be prefixed with #, and we are free to use # in other ways elsewhere.
>>>
>>> If # should be kept reserved even in this context, then perhaps something like
>>>
>>> function f(args: x, y, z) {
>>> // use x, y, z freely (they could be patterns)
>>> switch (args.length) {
>>> case 1: ...
>>> case 2: ...
>>> // etc.
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> The "label" names a rest parameter for the entire parameter list.
>>>
>>> /be
>>>> Mark S. Miller <mailto:erights at google.com>
>>>> November 10, 2013 6:52 PM
>>>>
>>>> 1) "#" is one of the few ascii characters we haven't used up yet. Let's not use it up on a minor convenience.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Introducing new syntax for use cases that are expected to be frequent, e.g., classes, often pays for its weight. The frequency makes it likely that readers will understand what it is the vast majority of times they encounter it. New syntax that gets used once in a blue moon can only be justified if the pain of doing without in those blue-moon cases is huge. In this case, it isn't. For those rare occasions when they see it, readers are much more likely to guess what "arguments.length" mean that this funny newfangled "#" thing.
>>>>
>>>> Code is read much more often than it is written -- at least code that matters. Brevity is useful as a metric only to the degree that it serves as a proxy for cognitive load on the reader.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> --MarkM
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>> Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:allen at wirfs-brock.com>
>>>> November 10, 2013 7:12 PM
>>>>
>>>> One of the the few remaining uses of a function's 'arguments' binding is to determine the actual number of passed arguments. This is necessary in some overloading scenarios where a function has different behavior when an argument is completely absent then it has when undefined (or any other default value) is explicitly passed in that parameter position. That situation occurs in a number of DOM APIs and even a few ES library functions.
>>>>
>>>> For example(see https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1877 ), Array.prototype.splice returns different results for:
>>>> [1,2,3].splice()
>>>> and
>>>> [1,2,3].splice(undefined)
>>>>
>>>> The natural ES6 declaration for a splice function is:
>>>>
>>>> function splice(start, deleteCount, ...items) {...
>>>>
>>>> but if you write it this way then within the body you have to have a test like:
>>>>
>>>> if (arguments.length == 0) {...
>>>>
>>>> to implement the correct web-compatable behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Or, alternatively you could declare the functions as:
>>>>
>>>> function splice(...actualArgs) {
>>>> let [start, stop, ...item] = actualArgs;
>>>> ...
>>>> if (actualArgs.length == 0) {...
>>>>
>>>> So, to implement a Web-compaable version of splice you either have to use 'arguments' to determine the actual number of passed objects or you need to declare it with a bogus parameter pattern and use explicit or implicit destructuring to parse out the positional parameters.
>>>>
>>>> One way around this dilemma would be to provide a syntactic affordance for determing the actual argument count. For example, one possibility would be to allow the last item of any formal parameter list to be an item of the syntactic form:
>>>>
>>>> ActualArgumentCount : '#' BindingIdentifier
>>>>
>>>> So, the declaration for splice could then be:
>>>>
>>>> function splice(start, deleteCount, ...items, #argCount) {
>>>> ...
>>>> if (argCount == 0) {...
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Allen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> --MarkM
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131110/75a12437/attachment-0001.html>
forbes at lindesay.co.uk (2013-11-10T20:06:20.051Z)
Good point - between that and your previous message, I withdraw the label idea.
Good point - between that and your previous message, I withdraw the label idea. /be Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 10, 2013, at 7:47 PM, "Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote: > > Also > > function f(args: x, y, z) { > > will suggest to TypeScript readers that the parameter "args" has type "x". > > > >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote: >> Hi Brendan and Allen, you are both responding only to my point #1. I consider my point #2 --- cognitive load of the reader on encountering a rarely seen construct --- to be the more significant criticism here. >> >> On these grounds, your >> >> function f(args: x, y, z) { >> >> is worse. Given how ":" is already used in JS, this suggests that "args" is either a label name, which the more astute reader can easily disqualify, or a property name, suggesting some shorthand for named parameters. >> >> Note that I am not saying that the meanings of all syntactic constructs have to be guessable with no guidance. But the rarely used ones do. >> >> 3) Awkward syntax for some rarely used cases is the price of good syntax for common cases. >> >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote: >>> On the other hand, we are this close in ES6 to relieveing people from having to use arguments at all. >>> >>> I like the intention behind Allen's idea. To defend the concrete syntax a bit, one would argue that only the final formal parameter may be prefixed with #, and we are free to use # in other ways elsewhere. >>> >>> If # should be kept reserved even in this context, then perhaps something like >>> >>> function f(args: x, y, z) { >>> // use x, y, z freely (they could be patterns) >>> switch (args.length) { >>> case 1: ... >>> case 2: ... >>> // etc. >>> } >>> } >>> >>> The "label" names a rest parameter for the entire parameter list. >>> >>> /be >>>> Mark S. Miller <mailto:erights at google.com> >>>> November 10, 2013 6:52 PM >>>> >>>> 1) "#" is one of the few ascii characters we haven't used up yet. Let's not use it up on a minor convenience. >>>> >>>> 2) Introducing new syntax for use cases that are expected to be frequent, e.g., classes, often pays for its weight. The frequency makes it likely that readers will understand what it is the vast majority of times they encounter it. New syntax that gets used once in a blue moon can only be justified if the pain of doing without in those blue-moon cases is huge. In this case, it isn't. For those rare occasions when they see it, readers are much more likely to guess what "arguments.length" mean that this funny newfangled "#" thing. >>>> >>>> Code is read much more often than it is written -- at least code that matters. Brevity is useful as a metric only to the degree that it serves as a proxy for cognitive load on the reader. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> --MarkM >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:allen at wirfs-brock.com> >>>> November 10, 2013 7:12 PM >>>> >>>> One of the the few remaining uses of a function's 'arguments' binding is to determine the actual number of passed arguments. This is necessary in some overloading scenarios where a function has different behavior when an argument is completely absent then it has when undefined (or any other default value) is explicitly passed in that parameter position. That situation occurs in a number of DOM APIs and even a few ES library functions. >>>> >>>> For example(see https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1877 ), Array.prototype.splice returns different results for: >>>> [1,2,3].splice() >>>> and >>>> [1,2,3].splice(undefined) >>>> >>>> The natural ES6 declaration for a splice function is: >>>> >>>> function splice(start, deleteCount, ...items) {... >>>> >>>> but if you write it this way then within the body you have to have a test like: >>>> >>>> if (arguments.length == 0) {... >>>> >>>> to implement the correct web-compatable behavior. >>>> >>>> Or, alternatively you could declare the functions as: >>>> >>>> function splice(...actualArgs) { >>>> let [start, stop, ...item] = actualArgs; >>>> ... >>>> if (actualArgs.length == 0) {... >>>> >>>> So, to implement a Web-compaable version of splice you either have to use 'arguments' to determine the actual number of passed objects or you need to declare it with a bogus parameter pattern and use explicit or implicit destructuring to parse out the positional parameters. >>>> >>>> One way around this dilemma would be to provide a syntactic affordance for determing the actual argument count. For example, one possibility would be to allow the last item of any formal parameter list to be an item of the syntactic form: >>>> >>>> ActualArgumentCount : '#' BindingIdentifier >>>> >>>> So, the declaration for splice could then be: >>>> >>>> function splice(start, deleteCount, ...items, #argCount) { >>>> ... >>>> if (argCount == 0) {... >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> Allen >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> --MarkM > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131110/75a12437/attachment-0001.html>