We already have two (three? not sure about JSC) engines which implement arrow
functions, plus Traceur. It seems silly to talk about changing the syntax at
this point when people have shown they’re already happy with the arrow.
The suggestions shown here, apart from the last item, look pretty ambiguous
(and therefore harder to parse). For instance, `x, y : x*y` already looks like
a shorthand property + a plain data property with a value computed when the
object is instantiated. ` x, y : { // body }` looks like a shorthand property +
a data property which happens to be an object literal. I guess the #(x, y)
could work, but what’s the point of changing the syntax around again?
Caitlin Potter
[email protected]
On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:30 AM, Salvador de la Puente González
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Proposal:
>
> x, y : x*y;
>
> or...
>
> x, y : { //body... }
>
> or the sharp alternative from Brendan [1]
>
> #(x, y) { body... }
>
> I find first option very interesting as it is very tiny for simple lands
> lambdas but allowing bigger bodies and with non ambiguous syntax.
>
> [1] http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/
>
> On 23 Sep 2014 00:38, "Matthew Robb" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it's also worth noting that CoffeeScript uses an arrow as well and it
> doesn't seem to impact usability much if at all.
>
>
> - Matthew Robb
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Francisco Ferreira
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to set some expectations, Although I follow es-discuss, I read more than
> I discuss. So the point I want to achieve with this e-mail is:
>
> I have played with dart since it was in alpha. And I also have been coding
> with --harmony for a while. I would like to comment that arrow functions in
> dart are much better than in ES6 (mozilla implementation).
>
> Let's compare
>
> In JS:
> anObject.thatGetsACallback( (arg1, arg2) => { .... } );
>
> In dart:
> anObject.thatGetsACallback( (arg1, arg2) { .... } );
>
> Sure, but that syntax cannot be used outside of call expression arguments. I
> had a proposal in 2011 (https://gist.github.com/rwaldron/961495) that fell
> down on this hazard:
>
> var x = 1;
> f = (x)
> { x }
>
>
> ...Which is a valid JavaScript program today, which means that `(params){
> body }` cannot parse unambiguously.
>
> Rick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
