kevinb at khanacademy.org (2016-05-18T05:32:39.871Z)
> I'm thinking, instead, static methods should be used. It would be more versatile.
I like the idea of passing both operands as arguments (mainly from an
aesthetics/symmetry point of view), but I can't think of case where it
would be more versatile than instance methods seeing as at least one
argument has to be `this`. Could you give an example of when this would be
more versatile?
Since the new syntax is describing what each type should be, maybe we could
leverage existing type syntax from Flow/TypeScript.
```js
class Vec2 {
constructor(x, y) {
this.x = x
this.y = y
}
operator+ (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) {
return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y)
}
operator+ (x: Vec2, y: number) {
return new this(x.x + y, x.y + y)
}
operator+= (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) {
x.x += y.x
x.y += y.y
}
operator+= (x: Vec2, y: number) {
x.x += y
x.y += y
}
// #number += this -> x = x + this
operator- (x: Vec2) {
return new this(-x.x, -x.y)
}
// etc...
}
class Vec3 {
// ...
operator+ (x: Vec3, y: Vec2) {
return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y, x.z)
}
// etc...
}
```
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm thinking, instead, static methods should be used. It would be more versatile. I like the idea of passing both operands as arguments (mainly from an aesthetics/symmetry point of view), but I can't think of case where it would be more versatile than instance methods seeing as at least one argument has to be `this`. Could you give an example of when this would be more versatile? Since the new syntax is describing what each type should be, maybe we could leverage existing type syntax from Flow/TypeScript. ```js class Vec2 { constructor(x, y) { this.x = x this.y = y } operator+ (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) { return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y) } operator+ (x: Vec2, y: number) { return new this(x.x + y, x.y + y) } operator+= (x: Vec2, y: Vec2) { x.x += y.x x.y += y.y } operator+= (x: Vec2, y: number) { x.x += y x.y += y } // #number += this -> x = x + this operator- (x: Vec2) { return new this(-x.x, -x.y) } // etc... } class Vec3 { // ... operator+ (x: Vec3, y: Vec2) { return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y, x.z) } // etc... } ``` On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote: > If both have the operator, the left side would be used (I thought I said > that, but I may have not). I'm thinking, instead, static methods should be > used. It would be more versatile. > > ```js > class Vec2 { > constructor(x, y) { > this.x = x > this.y = y > } > > // `this` and `Vec2` are interchangeable > operator this + this(x, y) { > return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y) > } > > operator this + #number(x, y) { > return new this(x.x + y, x.y + y) > } > > operator this += this(x, y) { > x.x += y.x > x.y += y.y > } > > operator this += #number(x, y) { > x.x += y > x.y += y > } > > // #number += this -> x = x + this > > operator -this(x) { > return new this(-x.x, -x.y) > } > > // etc... > } > > class Vec3 { > // ... > operator this + Vec2(x, y) { > return new this(x.x + y.x, x.y + y.y, x.z) > } > // etc... > } > ``` > > A few notes on this: > > 1. If an operator doesn't reference `this` or the containing class at > least once, an early error is thrown. > 2. To reference a primitive, you use the hash symbol + the typeof value. > The valid ones include `#string`, `#boolean`, `#number`, `#symbol`, > `#object`, `#function`, and `#undefined`. If value types with custom > `typeof` values are introduced, you have to reference the type directly. > 3. All type references must be either `this`, identifiers, or member > expressions that do not reference `this`. It is an early error otherwise. > Member expressions are evaluated at class definition time as well, so that > can produce visible side effects if a proxy is referenced or a getter is > called. > 4. The operators are checked via `instanceof`. This means, for those that > define operators, the behavior can become visible to previous code if the > other type specified has a static `Symbol.hasInstance` method. > > The reason I provided the `this` alias is for anonymous classes, so you > can create anonymous objects. It's also helpful in case you have a longer > class name (possibly by convention) that you now don't have to type out. > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016, 01:17 Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org> wrote: > >> @Isiah: Great points. One potential edge case though: >> >> ```js >> class A { >> operator+ (other) { } >> } >> >> class B { >> operator+ (other) { } >> } >> >> const a = new A(); >> const b = new B(); >> const c = a + b; >> ``` >> >> In the case where both the left and right side have `[[OpPlus]]` do we >> prefer the left side? >> >> > But, do we really need operator overloading? A method can be used >> instead, I think. >> >> @Dawid: Suppose I create a class to represent complex numbers that looks >> like this: >> >> ```js >> class Complex { >> constructor(re, im) { >> Object.assign({ }, { re, im }); >> } >> add(other) { >> return new Complex(this.re + other.re, this.im + other.im); >> } >> ... >> } >> ``` >> >> I might want to create instance of `Complex` with plain old numbers or I >> might want to use `BigNumber` instances. >> Without operator overloading this means that I would have add methods to >> `Number.prototype` or wrap each number >> in an object with methods. Neither of which are particular appealing. >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> That's the current state of things. I think the main issue at hand is >>> ergonomics. Haskell, the MLs, and Swift solved it by allowing inline >>> functions and operators as functions (that wouldn't work in a dynamic >>> language). Scala solved it by magic methods for unary operations and the >>> fact nearly every character is a valid identifier for binary ones (JS can't >>> use that because of back compat issues). Lua, Ruby, Python, and Kotlin >>> solved it by using magic methods. C++ solved it with the `operator` >>> keyword. >>> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 03:26 Dawid Szlachta <dawidmj.szlachta at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> But, do we really need operator overloading? A method can be used >>>> instead, I think. >>>> >>>> 2016-05-11 8:53 GMT+02:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> Efficiency and optimization. If you're stupid enough to want to >>>>> violate those priorities in a public API, it's your own fault. But if you >>>>> want to optimize updating a collection (i.e. zero allocation update for a >>>>> persistent map) or increment a vector by another without having to create >>>>> an intermediate vector, you'll want to implement the assignment operator as >>>>> well as the standard math operator. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 02:46 Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why would you ever want to violate the algebraic properties of >>>>>> operators, such that `a += b` wasn't exactly equivalent to `a = a + b`, `a >>>>>> *= b` not equivalent to `a = a * b`, etc? I'm quite confident that any >>>>>> proposal that allowed for that would get tons of pushback. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Isiah Meadows < >>>>>> isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Yes, they would be inherited, but not on the prototype itself (it >>>>>>> would technically be parasitic). It would be modeled with internal slots, >>>>>>> so that the properties are themselves immutable and transparent, so the >>>>>>> only way to inherit would be via the class syntax or `Reflect.construct`. >>>>>>> Engines could model this similarly to prototypes internally, while still >>>>>>> appearing to conform to spec, since there's no other way to access the >>>>>>> function without explicit reference via a decorator. And if it's not >>>>>>> decorated, you can transparently fast path the calls automatically and >>>>>>> optimize the function at compile time for exactly the number of arguments >>>>>>> (any different is a syntax error, like with getters and setters). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. I'm intentionally trying to avoid any semantics that would rely >>>>>>> on adding more values to the global scope. First, it's harder to optimize a >>>>>>> `hasOwnProperty` check. Second, when you allow properties to be dynamically >>>>>>> added, you make it impossible to lower `foo + bar` to a single instruction >>>>>>> if they're both numbers, because someone can change the Number prototype to >>>>>>> have one of the operators on it, and now, the assumption, previously >>>>>>> prevalent, is now invalid. Third, we shouldn't need to add 15+ new symbols >>>>>>> to accommodate a simple operation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. If it's pure syntax, you won't have the edge cases of `x += y` >>>>>>> having to desugar to `x = x[Symbol.assignPlus](y)` and so on. You just look >>>>>>> for an `[[OpAssignPlus]]` on `x`, and if it exists, call it as `x.[[OpAssignPlus]](y)`. >>>>>>> Else, you check for `[[OpPlus]]`, and set `x` to `x.[[OpPlus]](y)`. If >>>>>>> neither exists, you fall back to the old algorithm. This can be easily >>>>>>> optimized by the fact engines only need to check this if the value is an >>>>>>> object. Numbers and strings don't have this slot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: If the right side has an operator defined, but the left side >>>>>>> doesn't, and if the operator checked for isn't an assignment one, the right >>>>>>> side's operator is checked and called. Or basically, beyond assignment, the >>>>>>> mere existence of a slot takes precedence over no slot, to make >>>>>>> transitivity easier with primitives. To clarify, in the below case: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ```js >>>>>>> class C { >>>>>>> constructor(x) { this.x = x } >>>>>>> operator +(x) { >>>>>>> if (x instanceof C) { >>>>>>> return this + x.x * 2 >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> return this.x + x >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> assert(new C(1) + 1 === 1 +1) >>>>>>> assert(1 + new C(1) === 1 + 1) >>>>>>> assert(new C(1) + new C(2) === 1 + 2*2) >>>>>>> assert(new C(2) + new C(1) === 2 + 1*2) >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 01:27 Kevin Barabash <kevinb at khanacademy.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know at >>>>>>>> creation time whether the object has overloaded >>>>>>>> > operators. It's much simpler for the engine to figure out, and >>>>>>>> it's more performant because you only need to >>>>>>>> > check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, own >>>>>>>> properties, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Will operators defined on a class work with instances of a subclass? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Could += be a special case? i.e., >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For sure. We could define `Symbol.assignPlus`, >>>>>>>> `Symbol.assignTimes`, etc. with `u += v;` desugaring to `u = >>>>>>>> u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)`. The reason why we can't do something do >>>>>>>> `u[Symbol.assignPlus](v)` is that there's no way to define a method on >>>>>>>> Number, String, etc. that would reassign their value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > it appears to me that overloading an operator multiple times (e. >>>>>>>> g. unary/binary plus operator) might become >>>>>>>> > painful, assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic >>>>>>>> approach that regular functions do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another pain point is handling cases where you want one class to >>>>>>>> interoperate with another. In one of the example above methods are defined >>>>>>>> that allow `Point`s and `Number`s to be added to each other. In order to >>>>>>>> maintain the commutativity of `+` we need to define `operator+` / >>>>>>>> `[Symbol.add]` methods on both `Point` and `Number`. One potential >>>>>>>> solution to this problem is create `Symbol.plusRight`, `Symbol.timesRight` >>>>>>>> for all of the commutative/symmetric operators. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I feel like this ends up making things more complex because there >>>>>>>> are more methods to implement and the methods have to be more complex b/c >>>>>>>> they have to do type checking when overloaded. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe `operator+` could work like the `@operator` decorator by >>>>>>>> calling `Function.defineOperator` behind the scenes. In this situation, >>>>>>>> instead of methods being added to classes, the `Function` object has >>>>>>>> well-defined methods that look up the correct function to call based on the >>>>>>>> argument types. `u + v` desugars to `Function[Symbol.plus](u, v)`. This >>>>>>>> is definitely slower than internal slots, but if we're doing runtime type >>>>>>>> checking in the method we may as well have it be automatic. My hope is to >>>>>>>> eventually use static typing (flow b/c I'm using babel) to remove the >>>>>>>> lookup cost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Isiah Meadows < >>>>>>>> isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're correct in that the operator doesn't do any type checking >>>>>>>>> (it dispatches from its first argument, but that's just traditional OO). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016, 20:28 kdex <kdex at kdex.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> @Isiah: Comparing your syntax proposal to >>>>>>>>>> `Function.defineOperator`, it appears to me that >>>>>>>>>> overloading an operator multiple times (e. g. unary/binary plus >>>>>>>>>> operator) might become painful, >>>>>>>>>> assuming that the semantics follow the same variadic approach >>>>>>>>>> that regular functions do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is, of course, unless you intend to handle all operator >>>>>>>>>> overloads in a single `operator +(...args) {}` >>>>>>>>>> definition. But then again, something like >>>>>>>>>> `Function.defineOperator` seems cleaner and suggests implicit >>>>>>>>>> (optional?) type checks with its second argument. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dienstag, 10. Mai 2016 15:25:32 CEST Isiah Meadows wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > Here's my thought, if we go with syntax. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > ```js >>>>>>>>>> > class Point { >>>>>>>>>> > // constructor, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > operator +(other) { >>>>>>>>>> > assert(other instanceof Point) >>>>>>>>>> > return new Point( >>>>>>>>>> > this.x + other.x, >>>>>>>>>> > this.y + other.y) >>>>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > operator +=(other) { >>>>>>>>>> > assert(other instanceof Point) >>>>>>>>>> > this.x += other.x >>>>>>>>>> > this.y += other.y >>>>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>>>> > ``` >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 11:16 Brian Barnes <ggadwa at charter.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > > A note on this from somebody who's entire existence seems >>>>>>>>>> dedicated to >>>>>>>>>> > > stopping as much stuff as possible from getting GC'd, the >>>>>>>>>> example below: >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >const u = new Point(5, 10); >>>>>>>>>> > > >const v = new Point(1, -2); >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >const w = u + v; // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v) >>>>>>>>>> > > >console.log(w); // { x: 6, y: 8 }; >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > Could += be a special case? i.e., >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > u+=v; >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > would call: >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > Class Point { ... other stuff ... >>>>>>>>>> > > [whatever the syntax is](pt) >>>>>>>>>> > > { >>>>>>>>>> > > this.x+=pt.x; >>>>>>>>>> > > this.y+=pt.y; >>>>>>>>>> > > } >>>>>>>>>> > > } >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > instead of desugaring to: >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > u=u+v; // which would cause the creation of an >>>>>>>>>> object and >>>>>>>>>> > > // leave the other to be collected >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > For all I know, += might be doing such anyway in some >>>>>>>>>> engines, but for >>>>>>>>>> > > my stuff which is a lot of 3D math that could be a >>>>>>>>>> performance killer. >>>>>>>>>> > > It would be nice to be able to just add points and such, as >>>>>>>>>> long as the >>>>>>>>>> > > overhead is negligible. >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > [>] Brian >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > On 5/10/2016 10:52 AM, Isiah Meadows wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > I would prefer syntax + internal slots, since you'll know >>>>>>>>>> at creation >>>>>>>>>> > > > time whether the object has overloaded operators. It's much >>>>>>>>>> simpler for >>>>>>>>>> > > > the engine to figure out, and it's more performant because >>>>>>>>>> you only need >>>>>>>>>> > > > to check one thing instead of worrying about inheritance, >>>>>>>>>> own >>>>>>>>>> > > > properties, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > Also, it would be IMHO easier to read than a symbol (the >>>>>>>>>> computed >>>>>>>>>> > > > property syntax is ugly IMO). Using a different concept >>>>>>>>>> than symbols >>>>>>>>>> > > > would also fit better with value types whenever any of >>>>>>>>>> those proposals >>>>>>>>>> > > > make it into the language (either the struct or special >>>>>>>>>> syntax). >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016, 04:03 G. Kay Lee >>>>>>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller%2Bes-discuss at gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > Yes, I think exposing operators through well-known >>>>>>>>>> symbols is an >>>>>>>>>> > > > interesting idea worthy of more exploration because >>>>>>>>>> it's precisely >>>>>>>>>> > > > the purpose of well-known symbols to expose and allow >>>>>>>>>> manipulation >>>>>>>>>> > > > to previously inaccessible internal language behaviors. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Barabash >>>>>>>>>> > > > <kevinb at khanacademy.org <mailto:kevinb at khanacademy.org>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > And remember that decorators are essentially just >>>>>>>>>> a syntax to >>>>>>>>>> > > > apply functions to objects/classes at design time, >>>>>>>>>> so what >>>>>>>>>> > > > you're proposing is essentially some new global >>>>>>>>>> function, which >>>>>>>>>> > > > is going against the current trend and effort to >>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>> > > > modularize/namespace all these utility >>>>>>>>>> functions/methods. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > That's a really good point. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous >>>>>>>>>> places over the >>>>>>>>>> > > > years, you can find more info on this with some >>>>>>>>>> casual googling. >>>>>>>>>> > > > For example: >>>>>>>>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420 >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > Thanks for the link. I played around with sweet.js >>>>>>>>>> a bit over >>>>>>>>>> > > > the weekend. Using macros should work if we went >>>>>>>>>> with Python >>>>>>>>>> > > > style operator overloading. Instead of defining >>>>>>>>>> methods like >>>>>>>>>> > > > _ADD_, _SUB_ etc. we could create some well-known >>>>>>>>>> symbols, maybe >>>>>>>>>> > > > Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > ``` >>>>>>>>>> > > > class Point { >>>>>>>>>> > > > constructor(x, y) { >>>>>>>>>> > > > Object.assign(this, {x, y}); >>>>>>>>>> > > > } >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > [Symbol.add](other) { >>>>>>>>>> > > > return new Point(this.x + other.x, this.y + >>>>>>>>>> other.y); >>>>>>>>>> > > > } >>>>>>>>>> > > > } >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > const u = new Point(5, 10); >>>>>>>>>> > > > const v = new Point(1, -2); >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > const w = u + v; // desugars to u[Symbol.add](v) >>>>>>>>>> > > > console.log(w); // { x: 6, y: 8 }; >>>>>>>>>> > > > ``` >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > This would require default implementations to be >>>>>>>>>> defined on >>>>>>>>>> > > > Object.prototype for Symbol.plus, Symbol.times, etc. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:38 PM, G. Kay Lee >>>>>>>>>> > > > <balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto:balancetraveller+es-discuss at gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > Why not? The standard defines well-known >>>>>>>>>> symbols. Maybe >>>>>>>>>> > > `@operator` could be a well known decorator (assuming >>>>>>>>>> decorators get >>>>>>>>>> > > approved). >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > Well... you make something into the standard >>>>>>>>>> with proposals, >>>>>>>>>> > > > not why-nots, so in order to make that happen >>>>>>>>>> you need to >>>>>>>>>> > > > draft another proposal for well-known >>>>>>>>>> decorators. And >>>>>>>>>> > > > remember that decorators are essentially just a >>>>>>>>>> syntax to >>>>>>>>>> > > > apply functions to objects/classes at design >>>>>>>>>> time, so what >>>>>>>>>> > > > you're proposing is essentially some new global >>>>>>>>>> function, >>>>>>>>>> > > > which is going against the current trend and >>>>>>>>>> effort to >>>>>>>>>> > > > better modularize/namespace all these utility >>>>>>>>>> > > > functions/methods. And maybe a new mechanism >>>>>>>>>> could be >>>>>>>>>> > > > drafted for these new well-known decorators, so >>>>>>>>>> that we can >>>>>>>>>> > > > hide these new functions somewhere... but by >>>>>>>>>> now I hope it's >>>>>>>>>> > > > becoming clear that it's introducing way too >>>>>>>>>> much new >>>>>>>>>> > > > surface area for the language in exchange for >>>>>>>>>> one small >>>>>>>>>> > > feature. >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > I haven't seen any proposals for macros, >>>>>>>>>> could you post a >>>>>>>>>> > > link? >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > It has been mentioned and discussed in numerous >>>>>>>>>> places over >>>>>>>>>> > > > the years, you can find more info on this with >>>>>>>>>> some casual >>>>>>>>>> > > > googling. For example: >>>>>>>>>> > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983420 >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Kevin Barabash >>>>>>>>>> > > > <kevinb at khanacademy.org <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> kevinb at khanacademy.org>> >>>>>>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > 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 >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> > > > <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> > > es-discuss at mozilla.org> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org> >>>>>>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: >>>>>>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org> >>>>>>>>>> > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > > > es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20160517/b7361b3e/attachment-0001.html>