Slightly more correct wording but you get the idea either way

This commit is contained in:
boyned//Kampfkarren 2025-01-13 00:25:30 -08:00 committed by GitHub
parent f89a112d0d
commit 1f4916cfc9
Signed by: DevComp
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194

View file

@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ local moneyBinding = React.createBinding.<number>()
local moneyBinding = React.createBinding:<number>()
```
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 `<number>`. 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 `<number>`. 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.