Smalltalk-like cascading

[redalastor]

I'd like to suggest smalltalk-like cascading which I already suggested for CoffeeScript: jashkenas/coffeescript#1431 (comment)

[satyr]

Things to consider:

• The right syntax.
• Interaction with ?. .= etc.
• Is our with insufficient enough to require this?

[mcfog]

I think the syntax might be sth similar to .~

a.~b => __bind(a,a.b)
a.!b => __chain(a,a.b)
where we have

function __chain(me, func) {
    return function() {
        func.apply(this/*or `me` thinking about whether chained method must be bound?*/, arguments);
        return me
    }
}

[satyr]

Related discussion ongoing at: jashkenas/coffeescript#1495

[satyr]

"Expression Block" is unambiguous on top-level. Making this a with alias gives:

document.querySelector '#eyecatch'
  @style
    @color    = \red
    @fontSize = \large
  @scrollIntoView!

[vendethiel]

looks cool, but not really clear

[satyr]

with semantics may seem too implicit and/or cumbersome due to the context/scope change.

Instead introducing another symbol for simple substitution for the cascade target would give:

document.querySelector '#eyecatch'
  &style
    &color    = \red
    &fontSize = \large
  &scrollIntoView!

↓

var x$, y$;
x$ = document.querySelector('#eyecatch');
y$ = x$.style;
y$.color = 'red';
y$.fontSize = 'large';
x$.scrollIntoView();

[apaleslimghost]

Not that this should make a difference, but remember LiveScript are using & for their arguments shorthand. Does anyone actually use labels? Can't we pick something else for the label syntax and just use : here?

[satyr]

LiveScript are using & for their arguments shorthand.

So what?

Can't we pick something else for the label syntax and just use : here?

Colon makes most sense for labels.

Does anyone actually use labels?

Probably more relevant as named destructuring/let.