On 1 June 2013 20:52, Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
{
block: {
if (true) {
break block;
}
}
}
But then... I'm not sure this is any better than an IIFE!
Anything is better than
Hi, sorry if this is tangentially related to the conversation, however I've
just got a simple question. How would you call eval() with the ThisBinding
inside the evaluated code being a custom item? In ES5 we'd do something
like the following:
(function () {
eval(foo);
}).call(bar);
2013/6/2 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
Good points, thanks!
Le 01/06/2013 21:10, Petter Envall a écrit :
2013/6/2 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
Le 01/06/2013 16:52, Jorge a écrit :
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not
Le 01/06/2013 23:14, Petter Envall a écrit :
Re In this language, I'm not aware of other languages where you
need to concatenate code. It has become a good practice for perf
on the web as a workaround of HTTP 1.x limitations.
HTTP 2 promises that with multiplexing, script
s/Function/function/g
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
You’ll rarely, if ever, need IIFEs with ES6, thanks to block-scoped function
declarations and for-of (which creates a fresh copy of the iteration variable
for each iteration).
Thus, instead of:
(function () {
var tmp = …;
}());
you can do:
{
let tmp = …;
}
I’d still love to have
Arrow functions probably shouldn’t be used for this, this is not very readable.
I think you should have a look at modules, this is what is expected to replace
this pattern ;-)
From: jo...@jorgechamorro.com
Subject: IIAFEs?
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013
On 01/06/2013, at 23:49, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
On Jun 1, 2013, at 14:38 , Jorge jo...@jorgechamorro.com wrote:
How would this:
(Function () {
// ...
})();
now look like with arrow functions?
(()={
// ...
})();
What can be left out, if anything?
You’ll rarely,
But they're not fully interchangeable,
No, they aren’t.
for example I can exit a function at any point with a return, but can I exit
a block at any point with a break or something?
You can give the block a label, say, `foo` and then exit via `break foo`.
Also a function returns a value,
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not fully interchangeable, for example I can exit a
function at any point with a return, but can I exit a block at any
point with a break or something?
block: {
if (true) {
break block;
}
}
Also a function returns a
On 02/06/2013, at 01:12, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
for example I can exit a function at any point with a return, but can I exit
a block at any point with a break or something?
You can give the block a label, say, `foo` and then exit via `break foo`.
So should I break to a label *outside*
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not fully interchangeable, for example I can exit a function at
any point with a return, but can I exit a block at any point with a break or
something?
block: {
if (true) {
break
On 6/1/2013 4:52 PM, Jorge wrote:
What might happen with this is that if you concatenate a bunch of .js files
that use this pattern, they might end redefining the same label (which would be
an error, I guess).
You can only break a block that you're currently in. So this is fine:
block:
Le 01/06/2013 16:52, Jorge a écrit :
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not fully interchangeable, for example I can exit a function at any
point with a return, but can I exit a block at any point with a break or
something?
2013/6/2 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
Le 01/06/2013 16:52, Jorge a écrit :
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not fully interchangeable, for example I can exit a
function at any point with a return, but can I exit a block at
Le 01/06/2013 21:10, Petter Envall a écrit :
2013/6/2 David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com mailto:bruan...@gmail.com
Le 01/06/2013 16:52, Jorge a écrit :
On 02/06/2013, at 01:22, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 6/1/2013 3:44 PM, Jorge wrote:
But they're not fully
16 matches
Mail list logo
