Makes sense. I keep thinking that this kind of decision should (optionally) be made globally, possibly along with specifying exceptions for directories with legacy code. Kind of like one can specify the Java versions in Eclipse on a per-project basis. Apart from a meta tag, the module loader is one place where one could configure such things, but it might be too dynamic.
As a long-term migration strategy towards "fn" instead of "function", some IDEs could optionally warn about it being used as a variable or function name. But with blocks and method shorthands, I don’t see myself using “regular” functions much, anyway. On Mar 12, 2012, at 5:54 , Brendan Eich wrote: > Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> I like `use fn`, but it’s not yet clear to me how it interacts with modules >> (including, possibly, `use module`) > > use module; > > was withdrawn. > > use fn; > > is just a pragma to make fn short for function. You can still write > 'function' out. > >> . I would prefer to have an “all inclusive” version of ES.next that includes >> `use fn`, on which to build ES.next.next. But I don’t know what that would >> mean for legacy code, so `use fn` might have to be an orthogonal feature. > > It *should* be orhogonal. > > Remember, 1JS means no version opt-in. New syntax opts into its semantics > (new or not -- shorthands ok too). > > /be > -- 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
