Lady @Lady@cat.family

@noelle this is also where signing letters with XX comes from!! people would kiss the X as a sign of a sworn oath, so it came to mean kisses

it's XOXO in the US possibly by jewish influence

@aescling https://medium.com/thsppl/you-dont-have-to-apologize-for-being-white-12a3018d5abc

@aescling like for real kids are really good at taking random shit and slamming it together and getting something new but oftentimes that isn't actually … a good way of thinking about a problem

@aescling there's more to thinking than inspiration

a lot of thinking is just familiarity with good processing algorithms

@nex3 @noelle i just wanted to make sure that was what you meant and not `array.forEach($ => $.add())`

there is currently a proposal for a :: operator which does binding (link: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-this ), but afaict it doesn't do property access (so you would still need other::other.add). it's also Stage 1 which means it is mostly exploratory and may never get added to the language.

i think in most real JS code, one should EITHER:

1) be calling a function from a prototype, e.g. `Set.prototype.add.bind(other)` (i would love a more convenient way of saying this), or

2) be calling bare functions, like `add.bind(other)`, possibly destructured like `const { add } = other`.

the cases where i actually state something like `other.add.bind(other)` are pretty small and usually can be avoided with good API design (`other.add(...array)` or `new Other (...other, ...array)`). not saying it never happens! but i don't think reducing that particular bit of wordiness is necessarily a high priority? in your example i’d probably honestly use a for...of loop because it’s much more readable.

@packetcat myself too if i’m being honest

@nex3 @noelle how is what you are requesting different from `array.forEach(add.bind(other))`?

@witchfynder_finder in america? yes