Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
André Bargull wrote:
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.
No strong opinion. "Expression TCP" is nice, but not very valuable.
Nevertheless, that was where TC39 ended up. It was a good conclusion,
since trying for "statement TCP" was threatening to suck up time and
lose the consensus I forged for arrows.
Assuming we do not want `arguments` bindings in arrows,
I sense we do not want, but we'll discuss it at next week's meeting, I'm
sure!
I guess using arguments in an arrow is almost certainly a mistake and
should be a SyntaxError.
That's the wiki'ed proposal ;-).
We shouldn't be motivated either way by a desire to support
arguments.callee!
I know, I just used it as a stress-test. And then promptly forgot about it!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
