I have to say that I was a bit indifferent about the different syntaxes on offer until I had a good look at the strawman, and found that there were differences between -> => and #(x)->(x*x); with regards to |this| binding. I have to admit that at the moment, exactly what those subtleties are, is a little over my head at the moment.
But given I have to explain |this| again http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1085674/where-is-my-this-using-objects-method-as-a-callback-function/1085715#1085715 and again http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5639451/why-this-is-not-this/5692094#5692094 and again... I appreciate efforts to address the |this| problem. I think though, that in terms of familiarity, "bind" already effectively solves that specific issue. The # operator seems too much like ambient magic to me. Broadly, I like how the arrow syntax resembles mathematical notation for "functional dependency", much like the original function syntax resembles mathematical notation for "function". Given some time, I don't think it would be hard to get used to. But it might scare some programmers easily spooked by "weird" syntax. We're the experts, the language designers (you), and the advanced users (me and others), who are drawn to and appreciate javascript due to its resemblance to scheme and haskell etc. etc. so the arrow syntax appeals to us on that level. But one of the strengths of Javascript has been as a syntactical trojan horse- Getting these nice qualities under the noses of people who would otherwise find that stuff unpalatable. For this reason, as much as I like arrow syntax, and attempts to address |this| scoping, I have to lean towards #(x){x*x}, and us syntactical snobs can still have coffeescript. I still wish there was a way to make |this| less confusing though. I'm sure you do too. -Breton _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
