Big grammatical issues remain unresolved with the expression-bodied
short function syntax. For sure.
But ignoring expression bodies, just considering any shorter function
syntax that starts with ( params ) ..., we will have trouble reaching
consensus in Ecma TC39. To recap a bit:
From http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax
"This cover grammar approach may be future-hostile without, e.g.,
extending guards
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards> to be legal in
expressions."
We could resolve to allow guards in expressions, and get past this one.
Another lingering objection to arrows is this-binding (=> vs. ->).
Another minor objection is to having arrows + curly braces (vs.
alternatives such as block-lambdas). But JS won't have indentation-based
blocks, and block-lambdas are incommensurate in some ways with mere
shorter function syntax.
/be
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
I'm a little bit confused here. Wasn't arrow syntax "(args) -> expr"
shot down earlier because it is too difficult to parse for both human
and machine? I don't understand how "(args) expr" can possibly be any
better in this regard. (And I don't believe that a mandatory function
name in front, like suggested by Isaac, makes a difference either
way.)
If we are going for any of this (and I'm all for it!), then the arrow
form seems much more readable (even if -- or rather, because -- it is
2 characters longer).
/Andreas
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
