From 1f4916cfc91440d811406974f5034fabf5f0eeec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: boyned//Kampfkarren <3190756+Kampfkarren@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:25:30 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Slightly more correct wording but you get the idea either way --- docs/parameterized-function-expressions.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/parameterized-function-expressions.md b/docs/parameterized-function-expressions.md index ba3d2fc..4e57305 100644 --- a/docs/parameterized-function-expressions.md +++ b/docs/parameterized-function-expressions.md @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ local moneyBinding = React.createBinding.() local moneyBinding = React.createBinding:() ``` -The downside of these is that they blur the lines between runtime and static, in the sense that `React.createBinding.` starts out as a runtime concept, followed by the purely static ``. As for `:`, it carries the baggage of `x:y()` which will perform a runtime mutation of the function. +The downside of these is that they blur the lines between runtime and static, in the sense that `React.createBinding.` starts out as a runtime concept, followed by the purely static ``. As for `:`, it carries the baggage of `x:y()` which will perform a runtime mutation of the function call in the form of adding on `self`. There is also not necessarily a reason that we have to provide symmetrical operators, so something like `f!T, U()` is reasonably parseable, but is not obviously better.