On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe that David Bruant has a good point. We *need* a shorter syntax > because we advocate the use of map/reduce, etc., which require simple > anonymous functions.
No. We don't "need" syntactic sugar. The current function syntax is working and we are talking a few characters difference, not hundreds. Map/reduce don't "require" syntactic sugar. You may "want" shorter syntax but we've been getting by well without it. I think framing it as a "need" or a "requirement" is dishonest to the discussion. > As to why we should choose # rather than coffescript's ->, there are two > points: [long discussion ensues based on taste] There are so many more important issues to address. Peter _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
