On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> I messaged the list about this feature before I had the RFC written up
> for it. The RFC[1] is slightly different from what I proposed in the
> previous thread, so please read the RFC to make sure you understand
> what is being proposed before
Pavel Kouřil wrote on 03.10.2015 10:06:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> I messaged the list about this feature before I had the RFC written up
>> for it. The RFC[1] is slightly different from what I proposed in the
>> previous thread, so please read the RFC to make sure
when the grammar starts with function(args), it seems the main
difference from existing grammar is to make the curly braces when
there's only one statement in the function block.
in other contexts i had the impression that things like
if (bool-expr) statement;
and similar were going out o
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Björn Larsson
wrote:
> Leaves the options, >==, <== or >>=, <<=. But I don't like the
> last ones. One might also consider extending the spaceship
> operator to <==> for strict comparison.
>
Shift-left assign: >>=
Shift-right assign: <<=
So no on both of those.
Bu
