No problem -- just don't provoke Zeus to unleash the Crock-en ;-). https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-February/012761.html
/be On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > Sure - no offense or time-wasting intended. > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, 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
