Douglas Crockford wrote:
On 4/2/2012 8:24 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I saw it
here:<http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2012/03/30/what-is-the-meaning-of-this>
Right -- I think Doug was remembering the "Harmony of My Dreams"
sharp-functions
(http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/#sharp_functions),
but arrows express mutable function objects per
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax
which is the current source of truthiness.
I left a comment about this on the YUI blog, saw it post yesterday, but
it's gone now. Cc'ing Doug.
It seems I misunderstood what we were agreeing to. I think the
(this...) form is critically important, and the immutability thing as
well.
We had an agreement last year in TC39 to avoid making new shorter
function syntax implicitly freeze where the new shorter syntax falls in
full function syntax's general body-plan. This was the impetus for the #
prefix, which also can apply to object and array literals.
We're not going to implicitly freeze arrows. It was never in the
strawman, or on the whiteboard during the negotiations.
I agree that leading |this| could be important for dynamic non-method
use-cases, but those are relatively rare (let's not discount JQuery, but
again, it could use long functions and survive). We could put
leading-this-parameterization on the agenda for May, but we'll have to
be careful not to lose consensus on arrows.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
