2008/8/24 Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I call it unnecessary to make let (x = a, y = b) {...} be shorthand
> for (function (x, y) {...})(a,b). Count characters: 24 vs. 28. Come
> on!
And in the case of the let expressions using the shorthand (it is
proposed for ES4 and available in FireFox 3.0) that allows to replace
function optionalName(...) { return expr; }
by
function optionalName(...) expr
the situation is
let (x = a, y = b) expr
versus
(function(x, y) expr)(a, b)
That is again just 4 extra characters, 23 versus 27 and there is
nothing to sweeten with sugar.
Now, if those proposal of having "fun" or even "ƛ" as a shorthand for
the "function" keyword would be resurrected, then the explicit lambda
forms would be shorter then the let forms. Plus, compared with the let
blocks or expressions, such shorthands could be used with each and
every function definition.
Regards, Igor
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
