On Mar 9, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> I originally wrote up
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax
>
> and
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_lambda_revival
>
> as mutually exclusive alternatives, but changed the framing for the latter to
> recognize the new semantics (beyond =>'s |this| TCP conformance). Yet I agree
> that if we get shorter function syntax together, block-lambdas lose some of
> their "oomph".
>
> For downward funargs called by the control flow, and so for novel control
> structures, with paren-free call affordances even, they still have some win.
> Perhaps not enough to make it into any future edition without prototyping in
> popular engines and grass roots pressure...
>
> Anyway, I'm still trying to get something for shorter function syntax into
> ES6. I think TC39 can yet make an exception if we have our validation story
> figured out. That is where to focus fire.
If short function syntax and block lambdas are mutually exclusive, then the
block lambdas' syntax should be considered as an alternative for short function
syntax, that is, {| params | /* body */ } is a perfectly valid candidate for
short functions, without TCP.
And given that `this` is an invalid name for a parameter, to indicate a bound
this we could simply include it in the parameters list:
{|this, arg1, arg2| /* body */} bound `this`
{|arg1, arg2| /* body */} unbound `this`
--
Jorge.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
