proposal-bind-operator VS proposal-do-expressions

There was also a different proposal that allows objects to be extended: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-operator

Personally, I don't use classes much, but sometimes I think free functions a little bit hard to find, so I tend to experiment with the following pattern.

interface User { … }

const User = {

Yangi bind operatori Function.prototype.bind ni yanada elegant tarzda ishlatish imkonini beruvchi yangi sintaksis

In modern JS, you can export each function directly without putting them in an object. It also allows you to call a function with a specific “this” value, function.bind(object)(args). As a matter of fact, there’s a syntax proposal proposal and to do exactly this, object::function(args). This proposal could make what you describe pretty popular.

Hey, not yet ;)

This binding syntax (::)

You'd need 4 periods.

I don't think you want realms so much as protocols or extensions, the latter assimilating the beloved bind operator.

> no pattern matching/switch expressions

They're still waiting on the do expression proposal for that (https://github.com/tc39/proposal-do-expressions), which has been in the bikeshedding stage for the past five years.

At some point, it may be superseded by do blocks, but for now it's really your best bet.

But there is a proposal for do-expression : https://github.com/tc39/proposal-do-expressions

It's also the reason why do expressions are my most anticipated feature for JS.

> They should repurpose `do` so that `do {}` (without the `while`) is an expression that you can put statements inside and return the last statement.

There's a proposal for precisely that. Unfortunately, only Stage 1 though.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-do-expressions

It's one of the main reasons why I really want the do-expression propsal to work out, because then it would become:

Do blocks. Okay, this is actually a proposal so maybe someday. Basically blocks that can resolve to an expression.

Tomorrow, do expressions: