> There's no perfect answer. Shorter return syntax ("^" with an ASI change, or
> my "empty label" idea, "function f(){:g()}") is ugly, adds overhead, and can
> still be left off by mistake (making for the opposite problem from the
> capability leak one: returning undefined instead of the intended result of an
> expression evaluation).
For example:
array.map(function(x) { x * 2 }) // oops!
Also, any explicit return syntax has a "Tennent" problem just like return does.
Moreover, it forces programmers to write imperatively (return is a non-local
jump), when so much of JS code makes effective use of expression-based
programming -- for example, the popular "method chaining" style, which is
essentially functional programming with methods.
> I still think the completion value leak problem is manageable with docs,
> tools, and resort to good old "function" long-hand syntax. Opinions?
I agree. But I am sympathetic to Doug's concern about further overloading the
curly-brace syntax.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
