Not given. TC39ers (not all, just ones near me) started blenching (or is
it blanching? no, blenching). The issue was muddled because the optional
body-block was mixed in (i.e., the minimal arrow function, as in
CoffeeScript, was just |=>| in the previous version of the strawman).
As I've said a couple of times here, we could try again to reach
consensus on making () as empty arrow formal parameter list optional,
and separately consider making an empty body-block optional. I'll work
on the nearby blenchers before the May meeting and see about putting it
on the agenda.
/be
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
3. Are parenthese required for zero arguments or will
let a = => doThis();
syntax be permitted (in line with CS)
This too is clearly specified by
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax#grammar_changes
ArrowFormalParameters, second right-part.
That seems useful. What’s the rationale for not support it?
Thanks!
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
_______________________________________________
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
