From: Oliver Hunt [[email protected]]
> I guess this could be lexically unambiguous, but i'm unconvinced that the
> "win" of losing two characters in the strictly less common no parameters is
> worth the syntactic confusion
No-parameter functions are pretty darn common, especially if you count cases
where the function might normally take parameters but you don't care about them
in this case.
A very common case is in unit testing libraries, which would look like so:
```js
describe("addition", => {
it("should work", => {
expect(2 + 2).toEqual(4);
});
});
```
> I think an optional tail would be a huge coding hazard - a typo could result
> in bizarre behaviour
This has not been my experience in CoffeeScript, and I haven't heard of such
experiences from any of the language's other users either.
> how would `a => b => c` produce?
`a => (b => c)` is the only option; `(a => b) => c` is not syntactically valid
since `(a => b)` is not a valid `ArrowParameters`.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
