The strawman changes to the grammar are still ambiguous :(
`() => {}` -> noop or Object or SyntaxError? If SyntaxError, ...why?
I think hacking around this would not get rid of the footgun, but would
just make it more complicated to understand the footgun, personally.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote:
> What do you think the chances of this are in ES7+? That is, how
> backward-compatible is this change? The linked strawman doesn't seem to
> touch on `() => { foo: bar }` as a back-compat hazard. Do you feel hopeful?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Brendan Eich
> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 14:41
> To: Calvin Metcalf
> Cc: es-discuss
> Subject: Re: (x) => {foo: bar}
>
> See
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_vs_object_literal
>
> This could be done, but not for ES6. Sorry I didn't push this harder,
> earlier.
>
> /be
>
> Calvin Metcalf wrote:
> > this seems like a footgun and has tripped people up in the wild
> > https://twitter.com/jankrems/status/544645776518184960
> >
> > On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 2:05:52 PM Caitlin Potter
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > > In the implementations I checked, this is actually allowed, but
> > it's parsed as a label instead of what you may expect at first
> > glance (an object).
> >
> > For it to be a concise body, you need to change it to `let f = (x)
> > => ({foo: bar});`. Otherwise, it's like a regular function body.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Frankie Bagnardi
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > let f = (x) => {foo: bar};
> >
> > In the implementations I checked, this is actually allowed,
> > but it's parsed as a label instead of what you may expect at
> > first glance (an object).
> >
> > Is there any reason this is allowed? If there's no reason
> > other than to match function(){}, this should be a syntax
> > error, in my opinion.
> >
> > A potentially easier and wider reaching solution here would be
> > to restrict labels in strict mode to demand a possible
> > break/continue, else it's a syntax error. The only area I'd
> > be concerned about compatibility is low level generated
> > JavaScript.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [email protected] <mailto:[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
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
