On May 21, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Bob Nystrom wrote: > On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > > It turns out now that it's really a dilemma what to choose -- arrows or > > blocks... have to think. > > Arrow function syntax is "just syntax". I will drop it if we can agree on > block lambda revival. As @_sjs (Sami Samhuri) tweeted at me, "We'll always > have function." ;-) > > I was worried that using these lambda blocks would be heavier-weight for the > functional idiomatic use cases where -> really shines. But since this > proposal also allows an implicit return, this actually ends up being even > more terse than -> functions: > > let names = people.filter((p) -> p.lastName == 'Smith').map((p) -> > p.firstName); > let names = people.filter({|p| p.lastName == 'Smith'}).map({|p| p.firstName}); > > For me, this is pretty compelling. It covers both the "roll your block > structure" use case and the "lightweight lambda" one. Nice!
Good one-liner A/B comparison -- thanks. /be P.S. This will help kill something in ECMA-357, E4X, that is sugar for 'with', where the sugar hooks the kids on the poison. The lightweight syntax of blocks is just about needed, including paren-free calls (not used in your example, good choice -- and good to have the choice).
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
