I'm proposing that the same opt-in that makes function call a restricted production also turns off semicolon insertion, making that code into a static syntax error. For those cases where the language can't reliably tell what I mean, I don't want it to guess.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Waldemar Horwat <[email protected]>wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> On Jul 25, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: >> >>> Mark's restricted production idea is on target, if we think it's worth >>> doing. >>> >> >> At least in C or C++, I've seen code like this: >> >> >> veryLongObjectName.someOtherVeryVeryLongObjectName.ridiculouslyLongFunctionName >> (longArgument1, longArgument2, longArgument3, longArgument4, >> longArgument5); >> >> If I understand correctly, Mark's proposal would make that a syntax error >> in JavaScript. I'm not sure offhand if JavaScript programmers write in this >> style, or would find the loss annoying. Of course, you could always write >> this as a single very long line, or make sure that at least the open paren >> is on the first line, but programmers can be picky about questions of style >> like this. >> > > If you made function invocation a restricted production then semicolon > insertion would turn the above code into: > > > > veryLongObjectName.someOtherVeryVeryLongObjectName.ridiculouslyLongFunctionName; > (longArgument1, longArgument2, longArgument3, longArgument4, > longArgument5); > > Waldemar > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
