Re: Re: Functional Operators

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re: Functional Operators

Darien Valentine
Minor point regarding the syntax given here: introducing `(/)` would likely be problematic because it breaks the constraint that there are no positions in the grammar where both a division operator and a regular expression literal could be valid continuations.

(Perhaps new built-ins like `Math.add` etc might represent a more consistent approach to the issue of operators not being function references?)

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Re: Functional Operators

Ron Buckton

I have been looking into functional operators while working on a proposal for pipeline and partial application. I’ve found that a sigil like `{+}` is just as ergonomic as `(+)`, but has fewer lookahead issues with respect to regular expression parsing. While `(/)` is ambiguous as to whether it would be a division function or the start of a parenthesized regular expression literal, `{/` is far less ambiguous in most expression positions. The only ambiguity is at the statement level where `{/` could be interpreted as the start of a block with a regular expression literal. However, it is fairly unlikely this expression would be used in this position, and this can be mitigated using parentheses just as we do for object assignment patterns in destructuring assignments.

 

The other ambiguous case is how to differentiate between overloaded binary and unary operators. For that, I’ve considered following the approach taken by F# and prefixing overloaded unary operators with tilde. As such `{+}` would always be a binary plus function, while `{~+}` would be the unary plus function. In the same vein, `{-}` would be binary minus, while `{~-}` would be the unary minus function. For non-overloaded unary operators the prefix is unnecessary, so `{~}` and `{!}` would not be prefixed.

 

While built-ins could serve this case, they are far less ergonomic than a shorthand sigil for an operator. On the other hand, we could have both, with the operator sigils acting as shorthand for the long-form built-in methods. Either way, I would expect `{+} === {+}` as there is no sense in allocating a fresh function object each time it is encountered. Ideally, these would be frozen functions that are created once per realm and have the same semantics as an arrow function (i.e. [[Call]] but no [[Construct]], etc.).

 

Ron

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darien Valentine
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:08 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

Minor point regarding the syntax given here: introducing `(/)` would likely be problematic because it breaks the constraint that there are no positions in the grammar where both a division operator and a regular expression literal could be valid continuations.

 

(Perhaps new built-ins like `Math.add` etc might represent a more consistent approach to the issue of operators not being function references?)


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re: Functional Operators

Darien Valentine
If I understand right, Ron, it means a new RHS for PrimaryExpression and would behave like a reference, except that it is (presumably) not a valid assignment target? Can you explain more about the ergonomics — maybe it’s just from lack of familiarity, but to me this seems pretty grawlixy, like something you’d see in Perl.

In other words, I’m unsure how `arr.reduce({+})` is more ergonomic than `arr.reduce(Math.add)`\*. Assuming it is and I’m just failing to see it, is the benefit significant enough to merit new syntax?

(On further consideration, maybe `Reflect.add`, since `+` is not specific to numeric values...)

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Ron Buckton <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have been looking into functional operators while working on a proposal for pipeline and partial application. I’ve found that a sigil like `{+}` is just as ergonomic as `(+)`, but has fewer lookahead issues with respect to regular expression parsing. While `(/)` is ambiguous as to whether it would be a division function or the start of a parenthesized regular expression literal, `{/` is far less ambiguous in most expression positions. The only ambiguity is at the statement level where `{/` could be interpreted as the start of a block with a regular expression literal. However, it is fairly unlikely this expression would be used in this position, and this can be mitigated using parentheses just as we do for object assignment patterns in destructuring assignments.

 

The other ambiguous case is how to differentiate between overloaded binary and unary operators. For that, I’ve considered following the approach taken by F# and prefixing overloaded unary operators with tilde. As such `{+}` would always be a binary plus function, while `{~+}` would be the unary plus function. In the same vein, `{-}` would be binary minus, while `{~-}` would be the unary minus function. For non-overloaded unary operators the prefix is unnecessary, so `{~}` and `{!}` would not be prefixed.

 

While built-ins could serve this case, they are far less ergonomic than a shorthand sigil for an operator. On the other hand, we could have both, with the operator sigils acting as shorthand for the long-form built-in methods. Either way, I would expect `{+} === {+}` as there is no sense in allocating a fresh function object each time it is encountered. Ideally, these would be frozen functions that are created once per realm and have the same semantics as an arrow function (i.e. [[Call]] but no [[Construct]], etc.).

 

Ron

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darien Valentine
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:08 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

Minor point regarding the syntax given here: introducing `(/)` would likely be problematic because it breaks the constraint that there are no positions in the grammar where both a division operator and a regular expression literal could be valid continuations.

 

(Perhaps new built-ins like `Math.add` etc might represent a more consistent approach to the issue of operators not being function references?)



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Re: Functional Operators

Ron Buckton

(apologies for top posting as I’m replying from my phone)

 

Functional operators are not very interesting on their own, but are much more interesting in terms of pipelines and partial application. However, they may be a stretch in either scenario, so I’m not expecting them to be part of any official proposal for pipeline/partial application at this time.

 

By ergonomic, I meant that ‘{+}’ is far fewer characters than ‘Math.add’. Also, not every ‘+’ is arithmetic (i.e. string concatenation).

 

I can imagine a world where I can do:

 

```js

const sum = numbers |> reduce(?, {+});

const joined = strings |> reduce(?, {+});

```

 

As a shorthand for:

 

```js

const sum = numbers |> reduce(?, (a, b) => a + b);

const joined = strings |> reduce(?, (a, b) => a + b);

```

 

(I’m using `|>` here for pipeline and `?` as a positional argument for partial application here)

 

Ron

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:18 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

If I understand right, Ron, it means a new RHS for PrimaryExpression and would behave like a reference, except that it is (presumably) not a valid assignment target? Can you explain more about the ergonomics — maybe it’s just from lack of familiarity, but to me this seems pretty grawlixy, like something you’d see in Perl.

In other words, I’m unsure how `arr.reduce({+})` is more ergonomic than `arr.reduce(Math.add)`\*. Assuming it is and I’m just failing to see it, is the benefit significant enough to merit new syntax?

(On further consideration, maybe `Reflect.add`, since `+` is not specific to numeric values...)

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Ron Buckton <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have been looking into functional operators while working on a proposal for pipeline and partial application. I’ve found that a sigil like `{+}` is just as ergonomic as `(+)`, but has fewer lookahead issues with respect to regular expression parsing. While `(/)` is ambiguous as to whether it would be a division function or the start of a parenthesized regular expression literal, `{/` is far less ambiguous in most expression positions. The only ambiguity is at the statement level where `{/` could be interpreted as the start of a block with a regular expression literal. However, it is fairly unlikely this expression would be used in this position, and this can be mitigated using parentheses just as we do for object assignment patterns in destructuring assignments.

 

The other ambiguous case is how to differentiate between overloaded binary and unary operators. For that, I’ve considered following the approach taken by F# and prefixing overloaded unary operators with tilde. As such `{+}` would always be a binary plus function, while `{~+}` would be the unary plus function. In the same vein, `{-}` would be binary minus, while `{~-}` would be the unary minus function. For non-overloaded unary operators the prefix is unnecessary, so `{~}` and `{!}` would not be prefixed.

 

While built-ins could serve this case, they are far less ergonomic than a shorthand sigil for an operator. On the other hand, we could have both, with the operator sigils acting as shorthand for the long-form built-in methods. Either way, I would expect `{+} === {+}` as there is no sense in allocating a fresh function object each time it is encountered. Ideally, these would be frozen functions that are created once per realm and have the same semantics as an arrow function (i.e. [[Call]] but no [[Construct]], etc.).

 

Ron

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darien Valentine
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:08 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

Minor point regarding the syntax given here: introducing `(/)` would likely be problematic because it breaks the constraint that there are no positions in the grammar where both a division operator and a regular expression literal could be valid continuations.

 

(Perhaps new built-ins like `Math.add` etc might represent a more consistent approach to the issue of operators not being function references?)



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Re: Functional Operators

doodad-js Admin

One question I have: why all these fuzzy (sorry, functional) operators? That could become very hard to know what the code exactly does, and difficult to debug... Are you becoming too “lazy” to type on the keyboard?

 

 

From: Ron Buckton [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 3:54 PM
To: Darien Valentine <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Re: Functional Operators

 

(apologies for top posting as I’m replying from my phone)

 

Functional operators are not very interesting on their own, but are much more interesting in terms of pipelines and partial application. However, they may be a stretch in either scenario, so I’m not expecting them to be part of any official proposal for pipeline/partial application at this time.

 

By ergonomic, I meant that ‘{+}’ is far fewer characters than ‘Math.add’. Also, not every ‘+’ is arithmetic (i.e. string concatenation).

 

I can imagine a world where I can do:

 

```js

const sum = numbers |> reduce(?, {+});

const joined = strings |> reduce(?, {+});

```

 

As a shorthand for:

 

```js

const sum = numbers |> reduce(?, (a, b) => a + b);

const joined = strings |> reduce(?, (a, b) => a + b);

```

 

(I’m using `|>` here for pipeline and `?` as a positional argument for partial application here)

 

Ron

 

From: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:18 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

If I understand right, Ron, it means a new RHS for PrimaryExpression and would behave like a reference, except that it is (presumably) not a valid assignment target? Can you explain more about the ergonomics — maybe it’s just from lack of familiarity, but to me this seems pretty grawlixy, like something you’d see in Perl.

 

In other words, I’m unsure how `arr.reduce({+})` is more ergonomic than `arr.reduce(Math.add)`\*. Assuming it is and I’m just failing to see it, is the benefit significant enough to merit new syntax?

 

(On further consideration, maybe `Reflect.add`, since `+` is not specific to numeric values...)

 

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Ron Buckton <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have been looking into functional operators while working on a proposal for pipeline and partial application. I’ve found that a sigil like `{+}` is just as ergonomic as `(+)`, but has fewer lookahead issues with respect to regular expression parsing. While `(/)` is ambiguous as to whether it would be a division function or the start of a parenthesized regular expression literal, `{/` is far less ambiguous in most expression positions. The only ambiguity is at the statement level where `{/` could be interpreted as the start of a block with a regular expression literal. However, it is fairly unlikely this expression would be used in this position, and this can be mitigated using parentheses just as we do for object assignment patterns in destructuring assignments.

 

The other ambiguous case is how to differentiate between overloaded binary and unary operators. For that, I’ve considered following the approach taken by F# and prefixing overloaded unary operators with tilde. As such `{+}` would always be a binary plus function, while `{~+}` would be the unary plus function. In the same vein, `{-}` would be binary minus, while `{~-}` would be the unary minus function. For non-overloaded unary operators the prefix is unnecessary, so `{~}` and `{!}` would not be prefixed.

 

While built-ins could serve this case, they are far less ergonomic than a shorthand sigil for an operator. On the other hand, we could have both, with the operator sigils acting as shorthand for the long-form built-in methods. Either way, I would expect `{+} === {+}` as there is no sense in allocating a fresh function object each time it is encountered. Ideally, these would be frozen functions that are created once per realm and have the same semantics as an arrow function (i.e. [[Call]] but no [[Construct]], etc.).

 

Ron

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darien Valentine
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:08 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: Functional Operators

 

Minor point regarding the syntax given here: introducing `(/)` would likely be problematic because it breaks the constraint that there are no positions in the grammar where both a division operator and a regular expression literal could be valid continuations.

 

(Perhaps new built-ins like `Math.add` etc might represent a more consistent approach to the issue of operators not being function references?)

 


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Loading...