Dave, Kyle, Andrew et al Thanks for your feedback, very much appreciated. To clarify, my gist was in no way meant to be an "official" proposal of any sort, mostly for my own personal, academic benefit :)
In that spirit, I've updated the gist based on the comments and I've set a goal to implement (or at least attempt to implement) my idea using Narcissus - again, purely for my own benefit, however I will certainly share my findings for those that might be interested. Again, thanks for the constructive feedback! Rick On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Dave Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andrew Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Presumably it could be defined in the grammar so as to prohibit a > >newline in that very place, much like how the "return" statement is > >defined. > > Yeah, but that's one of the sharper corners of JS as is-- I think it would > be pretty subtle and error prone. And some people might want to align their > braces. > > >Alternatively: someone in this thread asked whether there was any > >purpose to blocks in ES when they aren't used for try/catch/finally or > >other such purposes. In other words, is there any reason not to > >restrict them to those use cases and thus remove this ambiguity? > > This would be a serious backwards-incompatibility, and with block scoping > they will become very important. My crystal ball envisions a web full of > > if (true) { > ... > } > > ;-) > > Dave > > > > >Cheers, > >Andrew > > > > > >On May 8, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Dave Herman wrote: > > > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Jorge <[email protected]> > >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 > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> es-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
