On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> We went over this in the thread Isaac started. You'd need a [no
> LineTerminator here] between ) and {, and then the syntax looks too much like
> a juxtaposed parenthesized expression and block.
>
> The latter problem, a lack of syntactic distinctiveness, also felled there
> entry
Thanks, iPad!
"the recently mooted", of course.
/be
> mooted {(x)x} block-lambda alternative syntax.
>
> /be
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Russell Leggett <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax
>>
>> Use => only with an expression body (do-expressions if accepted allow
>> statements and combined with => compete with block-lambdas).
>>
>> Use -> only with body block, as for long-form function.
>>
>> Just a thought - if a block is required on the RHS of the ->, why not just
>> skip the arrow? I could be mistaken, but would it be just as easy
>> grammatically to do:
>>
>> array.forEach((v, i) { if (i & 1) oddArray[i >>> 1] = v; });
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>> array.forEach((v, i) -> { if (i & 1) oddArray[i >>> 1] = v; });
>>
>> This way, there would only be one kind of arrow. Without an arrow its
>> basically just removing the keyword function, and therefore maybe a little
>> bit easier to transition. With the arrow added, you can expect a bigger jump
>> in semantics.
>>
>> - Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> I deferred other accretions.
>>
>> In a rush here, comments and corrections welcome and I'll edit as I can.
>>
>> /be
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
