Claus Reinke wrote:
And I was surprised that both pro and cons camps continued the
discussion of recursive self and dynamic this naming as if no
workaround was available.
I don't think anyone is really pushing hard for a dynamic-|this| form
(say, ->) right now. Perhaps some want it but the thread here has helped
me, at least, stick to my YAGNI guns.
To me, the ability to emulate the feature additions so closely in
library functions suggests that some variation of fn and rec should go
into the standard library instead of adding such features to arrow
functions.
Why wouldn't we add arrows too? There's a usability and an
efficiency/easier-optimizability case for them even with fn and rec.
But perhaps there are reasons for
preferring the language features over the library functions?
Your point about synthesizing dynamic-|this| given lexical-|this| forms
is good. It seems to me having fn, rec, and => is therefore best. What
am I missing?
I do suspect people won't grok fn and rec, at least not with those
names. They're very ML-ish or LISPy, not camelCaps JS-y.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
