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?
My reading of Rick's gist was:
(x = (x)
{return x})
The outer ( ) removes the ASI ambiguity. FWIW, I'm not terribly excited by
this syntax, but I like it better than ->.
One thing that troubles me about the goal/movement to have a shorter
"function" syntax... It seems like all the examples we exchange for it are,
on principle, single-line functions. From a readability standpoint, I think
it's a little deceptive to judge a syntax like that, without considering how
it will look for a longer, non-trivial function. How easy will it be to scan
for a function's start/end if the biggest visual signal for a function start
(aka, "function") is gone and is replaced by that rather non-descript ->
which, as was said earlier in a thread, looks a lot like existing operators.
Since in the real world, functions are usually a lot more than a single
return statement or a single assignment, I think we should at least keep in
mind the readability (or lack thereof) of how these proposals look when
there's 10, 20, 100 lines in a function... By the same token, how easy is
the readability when there's 2-4 levels of nested functions (the module
pattern, etc)?
--Kyle
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
