My thinking is that a variable that effects from others won't ever directly change itself, so that setting c(value) might, instead, throw an error.
As for the syntax, I find the reactive bit being well represented by functions so that let b <- a + 3; doesn't look too bad:
it's broken syntax these days, so it can be used/proposed
it is the equivalent of () => a + 3; except it accepts zero arguments as it cannot be directly invoked, and the arrow points at the reference that should reflect whatever the body/block returns.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've played around this topic a bit myself, and the gist was something like this:
This basically lets one compose values as effects too, example:
My thinking is that a variable that effects from others won't ever directly change itself, so that setting
c(value)
might, instead, throw an error.As for the syntax, I find the reactive bit being well represented by functions so that
let b <- a + 3;
doesn't look too bad:() => a + 3;
except it accepts zero arguments as it cannot be directly invoked, and the arrow points at the reference that should reflect whatever the body/block returns.