but only one made it ... I am not comparing but many developers are already confused about fat not behaving like thin.
Yes, thin should be part of ES6 ... it's way easier to spec as just regular anonymous `function` shortcut , I still don't understand why it has been left out. The `function` AFAIK was the boring/too long problem to sugar, we've got 3 other ways to define it in other flavors and yet not a shortcut as thin arrow would simply be. Best Regards On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > Alex Kocharin wrote: > >> > Everybody else that used to pass a different context to do something >> more meaningful >> Does anyone really do that? Except for fine-tuning performance? As far as >> I remember, people either use closures or .bind() stuff. >> > > Yup. > > Andrea, if you want -> (which you do) can you kindly stop complaining that > => is not ->? That's like saying blue cheese is bad because it isn't > cheddar. Both are great! > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
