Tamás Halasi (2017-12-28T17:10:12.000Z)
Damn.
I wonder why is that useful.
But whatever.

What symbol do you think would be the best?
A binary operator have to have an expression at its left side, so *, /, %,
>, <, &, ^ or | might be good.


2017-12-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>:

> Except it's not. The identifier `foo\u0048` is equivalent to `fooA`,
> for example.
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> me at isiahmeadows.com
>
> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
> Send me an email and we can get started.
> www.isiahmeadows.com
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Tamás Halasi <trusted.tomato at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Do you think \ would be a good replacement for #?
> > It is currently illegal outside string literals as far as I know.
> >
> > 2017-12-28 1:23 GMT+01:00 Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com>:
> >>
> >> The real JavaScript 'character wall'.
> >>
> >> On 27 December 2017 at 21:30, Sebastian Cholewa
> >> <sebastian.cholewa at interia.eu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On PC writing “§” character wouldn’t be convenient, as it’s not on
> >>> keyboard. One would has to copy and paste it. I see this as
> problematic.
> >>> Writing code should not require any extra acrobatics with set of
> characters.
> >>>
> >>> To be more constructive, available characters are:
> >>> [email protected]#$%^&*()_+-=[]{};:'",<.>/?
> >>>
> >>> W dniu .12.2017 o 21:56 Tamás Halasi <trusted.tomato at gmail.com> pisze:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hmm I see. I'll definitely remove the multiple ? marks and keep it one
> >>>> level.
> >>>> And change the # to something else... For example, §.
> >>>> With these changes, is there anything which should be changed?
> >>>>
> >>>> 2017-12-27 21:17 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My concern: I get the concept, and could see how at the first level
> >>>>> (e.g. `#? + ?`) it could be useful, but I can tell you that this
> >>>>> doesn't look especially obvious, and starts to look almost like the
> >>>>> line noise of some Perl or APL [1]/J [2]/etc.:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ```
> >>>>> // Example 1:
> >>>>> let foo = #foo(#???:??)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> // Example 2:
> >>>>> let constant = ##??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> // Example 3:
> >>>>> let makeAdder = ##?+??
> >>>>> ```
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And I agree with Mike in that it does remind me of De Bruijn indices.
> >>>>> Those are nice in binary encodings, but they tend to start looking
> >>>>> like line noise after sufficient depth. (An entire esoteric language
> >>>>> has been formed based on this whole thing: Binary Lambda Calculus
> >>>>> [3].)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, and this will most *certainly* conflict with the stage 3 private
> >>>>> property proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ```js
> >>>>> let bar = () => console.log("outer")
> >>>>> class Foo {
> >>>>>     #bar = () => console.log("inner")
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     method() {
> >>>>>         // Should this return a thunk or log "inner"?
> >>>>>         list.map(##bar(1, 2, ?))
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> ```
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language)
> >>>>> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language)
> >>>>> [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20161019165606/https://en.
> >>>>> wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_lambda_calculus
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isiah Meadows
> >>>>> me at isiahmeadows.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
> >>>>> Send me an email and we can get started.
> >>>>> www.isiahmeadows.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Tamás Halasi
> >>>>> <trusted.tomato at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> >> This sentence ends abruptly.  What would this proposal improve?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Oops, I accidentally pressed Send...
> >>>>> > So, it would improve functional programming in general, the
> examples
> >>>>> > are
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> > the README.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> Is this lambdas with De Bruijn indices?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Hmm, I haven't heard of them yet, but by looking at the surface,
> they
> >>>>> seems
> >>>>> > to be similar.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >> You have ?? and ??? for referring to outer layers.  Is there no
> >>>>> ambiguity
> >>>>> >> there?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > That's a very good point! I haven't thought of that. I can't think
> of
> >>>>> > a
> >>>>> > solution, the lookahead is indeed very bad. I opened an issue. I
> >>>>> > think
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> > notation (for accessing arguments from outer layers) will have to
> be
> >>>>> changed
> >>>>> > / removed.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Thanks for the feedback! :)
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > 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/20171228/fcdc215f/attachment.html>
trusted.tomato at gmail.com (2017-12-28T17:13:41.590Z)
Damn.
I wonder why is that useful.
But whatever.

What symbol do you think would be the best?
A binary operator have to have an expression at its left side, so *, /, %, >, <, &, ^ or | might be good.


2017-12-28 16:19 GMT+01:00 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>: