> B. add expression bodies to method shorthands, don't add skinny arrow > > (-) Loses the flexibility of shorthand syntax for assigning to an > existing object, a Tab pointed out. (Sorry Axel, mustache is not particularly > Harmonious.)
Sorry to hear that. _.extend(), then (by whichever name)? As long as this operation can be performed in some manner... > (+) Keeps us to just one arrow form > > C. eliminate method shorthands, add skinny arrow > > (-) Loses the method shorthand in object literals > (-) Methods in classes would remain the same, which loses some symmetry > between object literals and classes > (+) Eliminates visual confusion between getters/setters and method > shorthand, but still with a minimal syntax (i.e., "->") That would make super-references more difficult to implement, right? You’d have to invoke a defineMethod() somewhere along the way. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
