This wins on so many levels:
* Short but C-like myList.map((x) x*x) syntax for the most common cases, where
TCP doesn't matter.
* Full TCP support via an entirely new, but still pretty C-like, syntax with
myList.map((x) do { … }).
* The two are sufficiently close to each other and to the existing syntax to
be recognizable as functions, but sufficiently different to convey new
semantics.
The earlier Prototype 1.6 example:
inGroupsOf(number, fillWith) {
fillWith = Object.isUndefined(fillWith) ? null : fillWith;
return this.eachSlice(number, (slice) do {
while(slice.length < number) slice.push(fillWith);
slice;
});
},
inject(memo, iterator, context) {
iterator = iterator.bind(context);
this.each((value, index) do {
memo = iterator(memo, value, index);
});
return memo;
},
invoke(method) {
var args = $A(arguments).slice(1);
return this.map((value) value[method](...args));
},
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of David Herman
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 17:58
To: Brendan Eich
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: optional "function" keyword
On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
David Herman wrote:
Moreover, if you wanted to do some control along with an expression, you could
use do-expressions:
myList.map((x) do { for (...) { ... } f(x) })
Note that combination (expression closures + do-expressions) brings back the
exact same expressiveness of block-lambda.
Not so, because no TCP. Only block-lambdas preserve TCP fully.
Says you! :)
To be clear: what I'm suggesting is that expression closures would *not* be
syntactic sugar for statement bodies, but rather would be TCP-respecting. Most
of the time this wouldn't even be noticeable, until you use do-expressions.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
