guest271314 (2019-06-23T02:38:52.000Z)
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:34:36.502Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore or extend beyond some or all sections of one or all agreements. Re-read the proposal. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can `.name` be dynamic? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:33:09.628Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore or extend beyond some or all sections of one or all agreements. Re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:22:26.335Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The Engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the English language in their published work, though English professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the English words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in English supplied by an English-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. There does not exist any specification for the English language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the English language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:21:31.066Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The Engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the English language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the English words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in English supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. There does not exist any specification for the English language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the English language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:13:51.856Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of beingU+1F44D employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" or "transliterated" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms (nor how to pronounce the words), and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:09:21.667Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of beingU+1F44D employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" or "transliterated" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created _by English-speaking people_ based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms (nor how to pronounce the words), and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T03:06:59.325Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" or "transliterated" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms (nor how to pronounce the words), and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:58:55.455Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms (nor how to pronounce the words), and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:54:23.766Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:50:57.860Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. Authors and artists do not require agreement to create art. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization or empire) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:49:00.450Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some scholars claim "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization or empire) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:47:56.244Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilization or empire) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:47:18.365Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" (_Latin_ letters that were created _after_ the fall of the Ancient African Egyptian civilizations) means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:45:03.179Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition of words and terms capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:44:26.642Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. There does not exist any specification for the english language, nor is arbitrary re-definition capable of being prohibited. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:42:55.275Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:41:06.989Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?
guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-23T02:40:17.375Z)
> then we are epistemological nihilists with no criteria whatsoever on which > to base our language design decisions and this mailing list would have no > raison d'etre, since we would never be able to align on anything. That can be the case. Agreement is not required by the parties for a specification or any other document to be drafted, published, and even enforced. Even a treaty between nation-states. The populace can absolutely disagree with the authors of the document. One or more parties can sign but ignore some or all sections of one or all treaties between sovereigns. > But this is no more a readability problem than the fact that one must have > knowledge of the English worrds in a sentence in order for them to be > "readable". That is indeed accurate. The engish language is equivocal, capable of being employed for deception; where there are, generally, more than one meaning for a given word or term. The artist E-40 uses the english language in their published work, though english professor at western academic institution would more than likely not have any clue as to what the english words that the artist creates, combines and uses mean whatsoever; that is, without one or more individuals that might not have a masters or doctorate in english supplied by an english-speaking institution of higher learning the would-be teacher what the words and terms used by the artist mean. The same holds true for the Ancient African Egyptian symbols and scripts, which are claimed to have been "deciphered" by Thomas Young, Champollion, et al. well over a thousand years after the conquest of the Ancient African Egyptians by Alexander of Macedonia. An entire discipline ("Egyptology") was created based on guessing and spurious manufacture after the fact. They have no clue what the words meant to the authors of the symbols, as the authors were never asked and the purported "Egyptologists" were never told the meanings of the sacred symbols by the authors and builders of the scripts and symbols. Some say "TMH" means "created white people" others say the word means "Lybian". Since the Ancient African Egyptian language had no vowels, the user supplies the vowels; the word can have Latin inserted to become "TaMaHu", though since the language is sacred, the Ancient African Egyptians never told or taught their conquerors the original meanings of the terms, and never will. No matter how many times whomever tries to claim they understand those scripts and symbols they can never verify their at best guesses at worse intentional deceit. The manufactured mythologies and outright fraud continue in any direction and field traversed when dealing with specifically english words and terms. Therefore, the english language is not an appropriate example to compare JavaScript, or any specified coding langauge to. In any event, re-read the proposal. Am certainly not opposed to the JavaScript language being capable of golf by default. Is the gist of the proposal to substitute ```|>```, and or ```.``` at ```const getEmail = .contacts.email;``` as the first character after ```=``` for `=>`, meaning the initial ```.``` following ```=``` is interpreted as a function call, equivalent to ```=>```? Can you include comments next to the examples at the OP detailing what each character is intended to mean in JavaScript, compared to the current specification of JavaScript?