On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Peter van der Zee <e...@qfox.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> > wrote: > > François REMY wrote: > >> > >> I kinda like it. > > > > > > I don't, but what's more, Tab's point has come up already in TC39 in > similar > > settings. I doubt this will fly. It's hard to see 'return' in an > expression > > as different from 'return' at statement level. That's a readability > problem > > that I suspect would sink this if it were to get to TC39. > > I don't agree. The return-statement keyword is very much > distinguishable from the return-lambda keyword. How often do you make > the mistake for a function declaration vs function expression? > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > This doesn't seem simpler than: > > > > arr.map((x,y)=> '<' + x + 'class="' + this.getClassName(y) + '"/>'); > > > > Your other variants that shorten the 'arguments' name are better, but > > don't appear to offer much of a win. They also prevent you from using > > the argument list to good effect, such as by giving them descriptive > > names or using destructuring and rest args. > > I can see that point. However, as François points out, we very often > use lambdas in contexts where the arguments don't really need a name > in simple expressions, and could be named if you need slightly more > complex lambdas. As for spread, you'll still have access to the > arguments array Was it ever the plan to eventually deprecate the arguments free var? Rest-args renders it irrelevant, at least -- it'd be a shame to add in something else that depended on it. > (or $ or whatever you wanna end up with). A simple > slice will suffice. > > - peter > _______________________________________________ > 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
