3 ms·

Reporting for duty... A dedicated syntax for chaining has been discussed several times for CoffeeScript, with different flavors: https://github.com/jashkenas/

• raganwald 15y ago
  I would use indentation to discriminate between the cases: list .concat(other) .map((x) -> x * x) .filter((x) -> x % 2 is 0) .reverse() For pipelining, and: brush .startPath() .moveTo(10, 10) .stroke("red") .fill("blue") .ellipse(50, 50) .endPath() For what we are calling “chaining.” I use this now as a personal coding style when writing jQuery stuff with JQuery Combinators: added .addClass('atari last_liberty_is_' + ids_of_added_liberties[0]) .find('#'+ids_of_added_liberties[0]) .when(doesnt_have_liberties) .removeClass('playable_'+added_colour) .addClass('no_liberties’); The first “addClass” and “find” are both sent to “added,” “when” is sent to the result of “find”, “removeClass” and the second “addClass” are both sent to the result of “when.” It feels to me very much like how we indent scope and syntactic blocks like “if” or “unless."
  • jashkenas 15y ago
    Wow -- that's really taking significant whitespace to a whole 'nother level. Very pretty.
  • jussir 15y ago
    Looks very nice! Though the discrimination between intending or not is done based on whether the previous action mutates the object (no new intend) or creates or returns different object (new intend), right? This is something that can't be known on the language level unless there's a specific syntax for it, which doesn't seem to be possible for Javascript based languages (e.g. https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1738 https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/1738).
    • raganwald 15y ago
      My point is that if I owned the parser, I would ignore what the function returns and send the message to the previous receiver when multiple message inocations are indented in parallel. Here's an example using functions that both return a value and have a side-effect: ['foo', ['bar']] .pop() .pop() Would return 'foo' if I owned the parser, while: ['foo', ['bar']] .pop() .pop() ...would return 'bar'. You can infer from his what happens to the niial array in terms of side effects. My suggestion is that "chaining" method calls is a syntax issue and not a function issue, and that writing functions tonreturn a certain thing just to cater to how you like to write programs is hacking around a missing language feature. pop() is a great example. Why shouldn't pop return the receiver? The first example makes sense, you ought to be able to chain calls to pop(). Then again, why shouldn't pop() return what it pops? You ought to be able to pop something and use it, just like the second example. Baking chaining into what functions return forces the function author to choose On behalf of the function user. I do not blame people for doing this in a language lacking thenproper syntax, but given how much people do this, it seems worth considering for people writing new langauges or new syntaxes for existing languages.
• josscrowcroft 15y ago
  "chaining-as-a-language-feature is inherently focused on stringing together a sequence of imperative side effects, where it can be nicer to use expressions for their values." Out of interest, what do you mean by "it can be nicer to use expressions for their values"? Any example of that? Cheers!