On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Jorge Chamorro <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 18/03/2013, at 01:49, Rick Waldron wrote: > > > snip > > ...and Brendan's point about backwards compatibility is irrefutable: > > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019860.html > > snip > > How is > > ƒ fib(n) { ... } > ƒ is not a reserved word, so the following is valid today: > var ƒ = 1 > ƒ 1 ...Which means any code that exists (maybe there is none, but that's not really the point) will be broken. > any more backwards incompatible than > > const fib = (n) => { ... }; > const is a reserved word, so the following is a SyntaxError today, which means it can be "safely" rolled out without breaking code that already exists: > var const = 1; SyntaxError: Unexpected token const Although, I think François Remy's argument is the most compelling. Arrow has had consensus for a long time now and is already in the ES6 spec draft—it's here to stay. Rick > ? > -- > (Jorge)(); > _______________________________________________ > 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
