Playing devil’s advocate: The main benefit of having a function shorthand in
addition to block lambdas is that minimizers profit from it, right? For the use
case that you showed, I wouldn’t mind at all to type the slightly longer
"function". I most mind function expressions as parameters (for, say,
Array.prototype.forEach) where lambda blocks are perfect.
On Jan 19, 2012, at 22:47 , François REMY wrote:
> Yet they are cases where a block lambda isn’t suited and where a ‘classic’
> function is just too long to type (and would hurt performance as well). Look
> back in the thread for a sample. (Mainly: cases involving a ‘return’ in a
> loop or in a nested statement can’t be solved well using block-lambda).
>
> Block lambda is not the solution since it wasn’t written to solve the cases
> where we traditionnaly use a 'local function’, but to solve new use-cases
> where we want our function to continue to run inside a function structure, or
> asynchronously. The old cases where we use “function() { ... { ... return; }
> ... }” are not covered properly by block lambda, nor are intended to.
>
> From: Axel Rauschmayer
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 10:14 PM
> To: Brendan Eich
> Cc: Andreas Rossberg ; François REMY ; Oliver Hunt ; es-discuss Steen
> Subject: Re: Block lambda is cool, its syntax isn't
> FTR: With block lambdas and object literal extensions, I wouldn’t want/need a
> function shorthand.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
