André Bargull wrote:
>/ I see that I have a TODO note in 10.5.3 that says "don't create an
/>/ arguments binding for arrow functions". However, I'm not sure that we
/>/ actually had consensus on that point.
/
We never had an alternative that I know of. The wiki went further and
said 'arguments' is an error; this was based on meeting feedback.
>/ I'm with you on in thinking that arrows shouldn't rebind arguments
/>/ but I think there may have been some push back on that.
/
No one wants arguments in arrows.
The question is, should an outer arguments binding be visible? I think
so, now that Jason raises the question.
This is a different position from [1], isn't it? The notes from
January [2] as well as [3] might be of interest, too.
Thanks for the reminder -- I should have remembered this.
My appeal to arguments.callee was kind of a torture-test for why arrow
bodies should not be strict by fiat. But it shouldn't prevail if we
think "expression TCP" is more valuable. I'd be interested in Jason's
thoughts here.
/be
[1] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029196.html
[2]
https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-01/jan-30.md#conclusionresolution
[3] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029189.html
_______________________________________________
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
