I wouldn't overreact. My note was simply that we should not make arrows
strict by definition, and TC39 agreed. Among the "folk wisdom" reasons
for avoiding strict is to have arguments.callee, but of course NFEs
should be preferred in modern engines. But there's no arrow NFE form.
/be
Brandon Benvie wrote:
I think this is a better argument for introducing a new primitive for
referencing the current function than for resurrecting arguments.
On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Quoting Brendan Eich in [1]:
arrows can't have intrinsic names (contrast with NFEs) so
arguments.callee may be wanted, so arrows should not be strict-only.
Is this really an option? Sounds messy. Like a carrot to go back to
non-strict. I’d either allow arguments.callee in both modes. Or
introduce a new mechanism for a function to refer to itself. I
thought that `arguments` would disappear from JavaScript code over
time so the latter alternative seems better.
Axel
[1]
https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-01/jan-30.md
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
