| 09:41 | <Jack Works> | is there a way to get a native function in ECMAScript that do the following thing: (f) => f()? this and arguments are not important in my use case |
| 09:43 | <Jack Works> | oh I got it. Function.prototype.call.bind(Function.prototype.call) |
| 17:47 | <ljharb> | Function.call.bind(Function.call) works too :-) |
| 18:01 | <TabAtkins> | What's the reason for doing that rather than just writing f=>f()? This way is shorter, clearer, and safer since it's 100% syntax. |
| 18:22 | <littledan> | pOiNtFrEe PrOgRaMmInG iS mOrE eLeGaNt |
| 18:31 | <ptomato> | Function.call.bind(Function.call) has more . than f=>f(), so I don't get it |
| 18:32 | <littledan> | this is the academic usage where "point" means a named variable |
| 18:32 | <ptomato> | I know, just shitposting |
| 18:36 | <Jack Works> | What's the reason for doing that rather than just writing |
| 18:36 | <Jack Works> | It will bring better debug experience |
| 18:37 | <TabAtkins> | Ah I see, ok |
| 18:38 | <Jack Works> | https://twitter.com/jackworks_asref/status/1567372760573440000 |
| 18:38 | <Jack Works> | Nowadays I write proxies in this way |
| 20:44 | <shu> | should've called it pointless programming |
| 20:56 | <bakkot> | need a directive which says "debuggers should not stop in this function" |
| 21:11 | <rbuckton> | Like C#'s [DebuggerStepThrough] attribute. Maybe someday a @debugger.StepThrough meta decorator? |