2011/9/29 Peter van der Zee <[email protected]> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Quildreen Motta <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm not sure how this is much different from the rules you have now with > > ASI, though if this were such a problem, a block statement could be > required > > I'm trying to make sure we don't add another feature that we'll later > describe as "yeah, wish we could take that out, but we can't, that > ship has sailed". This ship hasn't sailed yet and if it does, I'd like > it to be as clean as possible.
Yeah, perfecting things is something I can appreciate. My point, however, was that I couldn't see a problem with Waldemar's first example since they are consistent with the current ECMAScript semantics (ASI). I personally find languages with few divergent semantic constructs better because you have less to learn and worry about when coding.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
