If the shorter syntax is derived from function's body-plan we do not
want arbitrary TCP creep. I think Alex Russell made this point at a TC39
meeting last year (regarding HoBD hash functions). Shorter syntax is
just syntax, anything novel (=>) can change semantics too, with more
novelty or freaky looks required for wilder semantic shifts.
/be
Herby Vojčík wrote:
You want non-this-bound callback, too... or do you want to force them
to use function?
Herby
P.S.: I would even see place for non-this bound, InitialValue-based
ones, like fetchers of value, shortcuts for
function () { return this.r; }
Kevin Smith wrote:
LR(1) is for granddads ; )
This is really sexy.
Question: for ShortFunctionExpression, do we need an additional "=>"
form for this-binding a function body?
ShortFunctionExpression:
Identifier_opt ( FormalParameterList_opt ) [no LineTerminator here]
{ FunctionBody }
Identifier_opt ( FormalParameterList_opt ) => { FunctionBody }
Identifier_opt ( FormalParameterList_opt ) => InitialValue
Thanks,
kevin
_______________________________________________
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
