Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In computer science, syntactic sugar is syntax within a programming language that is designed to make things easier to read or to express. It makes the language "sweeter" for human use: things can be expressed more clearly, more concisely, or in an alternative style that some may prefer.
In this example, it's used for instantiating the OUT class, which is the class for the standard output. The + operator has been overloaded by the class to append the string passed as argument to the stream. Operators such as + are syntactic sugar for conventionally named method calls: a + b stands for a.plus(b). The usual arithmetic precedence ...
List comprehension is a syntactic construct available in some programming languages for creating a list based on existing lists. It follows the form of the mathematical set-builder notation (set comprehension) as distinct from the use of map and filter functions.
p. q is syntactic sugar for p ["q"]. function p. q is syntactic sugar for p ["q"] = function. function builds a function. It doesn't declare it. Functions are first-class objects and can be assigned to variables, placed in tables, serialized into strings, and deserialized back out again. Think interpreted, not compiled.
CoffeeScript is a programming language that compiles to JavaScript. It adds syntactic sugar inspired by Ruby, Python, and Haskell in an effort to enhance JavaScript's brevity and readability. [4] Specific additional features include list comprehension and destructuring assignment.
In the programming language Dylan, which is an object-oriented language that supports multimethods and doesn't have a concept of this, sending a message to an object is still kept in the syntax. The two forms below work in the same way; the differences are just syntactic sugar. object.method(param1, param2) and method (object, param1, param2)
Method chaining is a common syntax for invoking multiple method calls in object-oriented programming languages. Each method returns an object, allowing the calls to be chained together in a single statement without requiring variables to store the intermediate results.
So the "I" is merely syntactic sugar. Since I is optional, the system is also referred as SK calculus or SK combinator calculus. It is possible to define a complete system using only one (improper) combinator. An example is Chris Barker's iota combinator, which can be expressed in terms of S and K as follows: ιx = xSK