kevinb at khanacademy.org (2016-05-08T06:56:03.601Z)
I should update the demo code to show the `@operator` decorator in addition
to `Function.defineOperator`.
Initially I started out with just the `@operator` decorator, but that meant
that each class would have to have knowledge of each of the classes it
might want to interact with before hand. Having a separate
`defineOperator` function avoids this situation.
It means that prototype style classes must be converted to the new class
syntax before operator overloading could be used. Lastly, there may be
some cases where it makes sense to overload operators with existing 3rd
party code or built-in classes, e.g. adding set operations to Set using
operator overloading.
> It's also apparent that the `@operator decorator` part of the proposal is
> an effort trying to address this issue, but it really is not the
> responsibility of the standard to try to define such a thing.
Why not? The standard defines well-known symbols. Maybe `@operator` could
be a well known decorator (assuming decorators get approved).
Slide 15 from http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp shows syntax
for defining operators in value types which could be adapted as follows for
regular classes:
```
class Point {
constructor(x, y) {
this.x = +x;
this.y = +y;
}
Point + Number (a, b) {
return new Point(a.x + b, a.y + b);
}
Number + Point (a, b) {
return new Point(a + b.x, a + b.y);
}
Point + Point (a, b) {
return new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y);
}
}
```
Having to define `+` twice for `Point + Number` and `Number + Point` seems
like busy work, but maybe it's better to be explicit. What are you
thoughts about this syntax?
> Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there are too much
> quirks/conventions in the proposal that feel non-evident and non-flexible
> which is destined to trip people over from time to time. It would be great
> to make a proposal that's simple and don't include too much assumptions.
Could you elaborator what quirks/conventions might trip people up?
> Finally, I'm not sure about the current status of macros, but last I
> heard of it, they say it's going to make its way into the standard pretty
> soon (TM), and macros can do much of the things overloading could, and much
> more.
Could you post a link any more info? Will it be something like sweet.js?
I should update the demo code to show the `@operator` decorator in addition to `Function.defineOperator`. Initially I started out with just the `@operator` decorator, but that meant that each class would have to have knowledge of each of the classes it might want to interact with before hand. Having a separate `defineOperator` function avoids this situation. It means that prototype style classes must be converted to the new class syntax before operator overloading could be used. Lastly, there may be some cases where it makes sense to overload operators with existing 3rd party code or built-in classes, e.g. adding set operations to Set using operator overloading. > It's also apparent that the `@operator decorator` part of the proposal is an effort trying to address this issue, but it really is not the responsibility of the standard to try to define such a thing. Why not? The standard defines well-known symbols. Maybe `@operator` could be a well known decorator (assuming decorators get approved). Slide 15 from http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp shows syntax for defining operators in value types which could be adapted as follows for regular classes: ``` class Point { constructor(x, y) { this.x = +x; this.y = +y; } Point + Number (a, b) { return new Point(a.x + b, a.y + b); } Number + Point (a, b) { return new Point(a + b.x, a + b.y); } Point + Point (a, b) { return new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y); } } ``` Having to define `+` twice for `Point + Number` and `Number + Point` seems like busy work, but maybe it's better to be explicit. What are you thoughts about this syntax? > Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there are too much quirks/conventions in the proposal that feel non-evident and non-flexible which is destined to trip people over from time to time. It would be great to make a proposal that's simple and don't include too much assumptions. Could you elaborator what quirks/conventions might trip people up? > Finally, I'm not sure about the current status of macros, but last I heard of it, they say it's going to make its way into the standard pretty soon (TM), and macros can do much of the things overloading could, and much more. I haven't seen any proposals for macros, could you post a link? On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:55 PM, G. Kay Lee < balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd say it's way too early to ask for a champion on this because just a > quick skimming revealed a lot of places that didn't add up. For example, > the proposal suggested that overloading is primarily targeted at making it > easier to work with user-defined classes, but curiously a > `Function.defineOperator()` method is proposed instead of some syntax that > feels more tightly integrated with the class definition syntax. > > ``` > > class Point { > constructor(x, y) { > Object.assign(this, { x, y }); > } > > toString() { > return `(${this.x}, ${this.y})`; > } > } > Function.defineOperator('+', [Point, Point], (a, b) => new Point(a.x + b.x, a.y + b.y)); > > ``` > > The demo code made this flaw evident - it looks like a giant step backward > to define an instance method like this, don't you agree? > > It's also apparent that the `@operator decorator` part of the proposal is > an effort trying to address this issue, but it really is not the > responsibility of the standard to try to define such a thing. > > What I'd suggest is that perhaps you should rethink your proposed syntax > and redesign it to become an extension of the ES6 class definition syntax. > > Another thing is that, IMHO, currently there are too much > quirks/conventions in the proposal that feel non-evident and non-flexible > which is destined to trip people over from time to time. It would be great > to make a proposal that's simple and don't include too much assumptions. > > Finally, I'm not sure about the current status of macros, but last I heard > of it, they say it's going to make its way into the standard pretty soon > (TM), and macros can do much of the things overloading could, and much more. > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org> > wrote: > >> I forgot to mention in my last email that I'm looking for a champion for >> this proposal. >> >> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I've been working on implementing operator overloading and would like to >>> submit a proposal. >>> >>> I think operator overloading would be a useful addition to the >>> language. In particular I think it would be useful for defining operations >>> on common mathematical object types such as complex numbers, vectors, >>> matrices, and sets. >>> >>> I've create a working prototype that consists of: >>> >>> - babel plugin that rewrites operators as function calls >>> - a polyfill which defines these functions and which call the >>> correct argument-specific function based on the arguments' prototypes >>> - Function.defineOperator which can be used to define which function >>> an operator should use for the specified types >>> - "use overloading" directive which allows users to opt-in >>> >>> More details can be found at >>> https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading. >>> The babel plugin can be found at >>> https://github.com/kevinbarabash/babel-plugin-operator-overloading. >>> I also have a demo project at >>> https://github.com/kevinbarabash/operator-overloading-demo. >>> >>> The design was inspired by some of the slides from >>> http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/js-resp. >>> >>> – Kevin >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss at mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160507/232098a3/attachment.html>