Commit 7e3e74f

authored

"syntactic sugar" instead of "syntax sugar"

historically and in general use this phenomena is called as "syntactic sugar". I think we can change it for understand-ability and engineering convention. https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/s/syntactic-sugar.htm

1 parent dcb9d87 commit 7e3e74fCopy full SHA for 7e3e74f

File tree

-3

lines changed

-3

lines changed

Lines changed: 3 additions & 3 deletions

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -116,9 +116,9 @@ alert(User.prototype.sayHi); // alert(this.name);`
`116`	`116`	`alert(Object.getOwnPropertyNames(User.prototype)); // constructor, sayHi`
`117`	`117`	```
`118`	`118`
`119`		`-## Not just a syntax sugar`
	`119`	`+## Not just a syntactic sugar`
`120`	`120`
`121`		-Sometimes people say that `class` is a "syntax sugar" (syntax that is designed to make things easier to read, but doesn't introduce anything new), because we could actually declare the same without `class` keyword at all:
	`121`	+Sometimes people say that `class` is a "syntactic sugar" (syntax that is designed to make things easier to read, but doesn't introduce anything new), because we could actually declare the same without `class` keyword at all:
`122`	`122`
`123`	`123`	```js run
`124`	`124`	`// rewriting class User in pure functions`
`@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ let user = new User("John");`
`140`	`140`	`user.sayHi();`
`141`	`141`	```
`142`	`142`
`143`		-The result of this definition is about the same. So, there are indeed reasons why `class` can be considered a syntax sugar to define a constructor together with its prototype methods.
	`143`	+The result of this definition is about the same. So, there are indeed reasons why `class` can be considered a syntactic sugar to define a constructor together with its prototype methods.
`144`	`144`
`145`	`145`	`Still, there are important differences.`
`146`	`146`

Comments

(0)