Great to gain consensus indeed. This looks just about as nice as it can be.
Minor question: There are no examples of "very empty" arrow functions, e.g. `=>` or `=> 5`. And from what I can tell reading the grammar , they are not allowed. Is this necessary? CoffeeScript's allowance of `-> (expr)` gives some nice-looking code, for example see [1]. Bigger question: It sounds like TCP was sacrificed in favor of maximal minimalism, which makes sense. But, is this strawman friendly toward future TCP endeavors, perhaps in ES.next.next? For example, if `do` expressions were specced in the way discussed previously, could putting one to the right of the => result in TCP semantics? [1]: https://github.com/domenic/sinon-chai/blob/master/test/callOrder.coffee -----Original Message----- From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 02:30 To: Waldemar Horwat Cc: es-discuss Subject: Re: March 28 meeting notes Waldemar Horwat wrote: > Consensus on: > - Have only one arrow, namely => > - this is always static. No provision for dynamic this. > - Other than the treatment of this, the function behaves like a normal > function. return, break, etc. behave as though the function body were > in a function(...){...}. > > To be discussed later: > The thing that comes after the arrow: > 1. Always an expression (possibly a do expression)? > 2. A block if it starts with {, otherwise an expression. See http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax -- I'm a bit tired from travel so may have made a mistake or two, and I know some of the examples should be better. Comments welcome. Great to gain consensus on this today! /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
