On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:40 AM, gaz Heyes <gazhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 November 2011 15:33, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote:
> let a = ({
>
> print('doing stuff');
> 100;
> });
>
> How do you know the difference between a blank block statement and a object
> literal? Surely it becomes an expression once an assignment occurs anyway.
>
> Doh! Sorry, I completely mis-thought that. Nevermind.
Your idea of mandatory parens is still valid (if, IMO, a bit unsatisfyingly
verbose) for most statement forms. It's only the block-statement-expression
that doesn't work. Hence my do-expressions:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:do_expressions
or Brendan's subtly-disambiguated-block-statement-expressions:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_vs_object_literal
If Brendan's idea can be made to work, and it's not too confusing, I'm pretty
sure I'd prefer it over do-expressions. You could simply write:
let a = {
print('doing stuff');
100
};
How gorgeous is that?
But I suspect as we work on evolving the syntax of object literals, it'll get
harder to keep them disambiguated. For example, is this:
let a = {
foo(x)
{
alert(x)
}
}
...equivalent to this?
let a = {
foo: function(x)
{
alert(x);
}
};
...or this?
let a = {
foo(x);
{
alert(x);
}
};
So I just don't know if it's feasible.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
