Putting aside my immediate esthetic reaction, I suggest we consider one of
=>, *=>, !=>
=>, =*>, =!>
=>, *>, !>
Which do you hate least?
Btw, Kevin, I have read and do not understand your argument about why we
would not want generator arrow functions but would want async arrow
functions. If we could agree on syntax, I still want both.
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Alex Russell <[email protected]>wrote:
> If you can't indicate that the arrow itself is async somehow (either by
> prefixing it with "deferred" or "async" or using a variant of the arrow
> itself, e.g. "~=>"), then you get into the issue Brendan describes when you
> allow "await" inside the body.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Banning await here is only a solution if you're also not going to ban
>>> an async descriptor on the arrow expression. THAT is the mistake.
>>>
>>
>> Not sure I follow - can you elaborate? What is an "async descriptor on
>> the arrow expression"?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
