>> Is this a proposed syntax? No- It was an off the cuff reaction > Suggestion: do not mail syntax Noted
On 25 Mar 2011, at 17:34, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > It's totally ambiguous. > > Suggestion: do not mail syntax ideas without working through (pencil and > paper, Jison/Bison/Antlr/something, or better) the grammar. > > More specific suggestion: don't bikeshed function syntax without a new prefix > character or a convincing top-down parsing story. If you don't know what > top-down vs. bottom-up means, find out first. > > /be > > On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Mike Samuel wrote: > >> 2011/3/25 David Foley <[email protected]>: >>> Implicit functions? >>> >>> globalMethod(argument) >>> { >>> // implementation >>> }; >>> AnObject.prototype.method(value) >>> { >>> // whatevs >>> }; >> >> Is this a proposed syntax? >> >> If so, in the presence of semicolon insertion, isn't this ambiguous with >> >> globalMethodCall(argument); >> { >> // block >> } >> ; // noop >> AnObject.prototype.methodCall(value); >> { >> // another block >> } >> ; // noop >> >> >>> On 25 Mar 2011, at 17:28, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Oh, boogers! : ) >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 2011/3/25 Kevin Smith <[email protected]>: >>>>> As a simple matter of taste, I find the # symbol to be quite ugly and >>>>> have >>>>> been thinking of alternatives for shortening function expression syntax. >>>>> In working with my own wonky version of promises, I continue to make the >>>>> same typing error over and over again. This is something like what I >>>>> mean >>>>> to type: >>>>> obj.doSomething().then(function(val, err) >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> }); >>>>> But I find myself typing this instead: >>>>> obj.doSomething().then(val, err) >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> }); >>>>> The problem isn't so much the extra typing of the "function" keyword, >>>>> but >>>>> the profusion of parens. I'd like to suggest the following form >>>>> instead. >>>>> obj.doSomething().then(<val, err> >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> }); >>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but since expressions cannot start with "<", >>>>> this >>>>> shouldn't present any problems for a top-down parser. Is that right? >>>> >>>> Does this cause ambiguities with E4X ? >>>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/e4x >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> khs >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
