Do I understand you that the idea here is 'function' without the 'function'
keyword? I think this has a pretty bad backwards-incompatibility with ASI:
x = (x)
{ return x }
Which way should this parse?
Dave
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just read
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008218.html and I'm
buzzing with the idea of Lisp style functions as "
inspiration" for a short hand. While I realize the idea is likely absurd, but
I'm thinking in terms of concepts that _all_ JavaScript devs know and
understand.
This is a super simple, first-pass, rough-draft, not-too-serious,
request-for-comments...
https://gist.github.com/961495
Rick
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Faisal Vali <fais...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On 08/05/2011, at 05:52, Faisal Vali wrote:
>
>> (...) I find the
>> aesthetics of the arrow-syntax far more consistent with javascript's
>> C-based-syntactic roots than the preprocessor-tainted '#' (...)
>
> Consistent ?
>
> -> in C has a *totally* different meaning !
Yes, but that is why I alluded to a syntactic commonality and not a
semantic one.
But, I can see how the disparity in semantics might bother some programmers.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
