Open avelino opened 6 years ago
I was thinking about this and I believe I do not like the dot notation. What if we do this:
(let test (join " " (array("Testing", "string", "Join")))
(print test)
Testing string Join
@crgimenes doesn't it just adds another reserved keyword to the language? is this something that we're willing to do? Cause If we adopt this behavior it can get somewhat problematic for future users (e.g. java/javascript that many are not used).
This behavior also makes it difficult to extend the language, by using a function we may even let the user choose if he/she wants to use his/hers own joiner function.
I just do not like the notation value.doSomething(...)
(dot function)
My opinion is that adding an internal function is better.
Maybe I'm just too focused on building a really simple parser and so any addition that runs away from the basics notation already causes me concerns.
Let's see what others have to say. @avelino @felipeweb @trumae @marioidival
I am not like the dot notation the idea of internal func is very good to make a wrapper for the go notation On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 at 09:29 Cesar Gimenes notifications@github.com wrote:
I just do not like the notation value.doSomething(...) (dot function) My opinion is that adding an internal function is better.
Maybe I'm just too focused on building a really simple parser and so any addition that runs away from the basics notation already causes me concerns.
Let's see what others have to say. @avelino https://github.com/avelino @felipeweb https://github.com/felipeweb @trumae https://github.com/trumae
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/rumlang/rum/issues/64#issuecomment-364896560, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEpfGeUyzGTiaFk-hsRTce3_uoZMoBfUks5tUCCXgaJpZM4QyMEa .