Also, I did some analysis on this issue way back when. In the codebases that I looked at the percentage of "bound this functions" which simply returned an object literal were quite low.
(See the "%Object Literals" column) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aro5yQ2fa01xdENxUzBuNXczb21vUWVUX0tyVmNKTUE#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aro5yQ2fa01xdEJySWxhZ1VoZ0VaWTdldXp4NUtJd3c#gid=0 (from https://esdiscuss.org/topic/btf-measurements) Of course, actually having arrow functions will change the situation to some degree, but the current tradeoff made sense in light of that evidence. On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin Smith wrote: > >> >> I think hacking around this would not get rid of the footgun, but >> would just make it more complicated to understand the footgun, >> personally. >> >> >> My gut reaction is to agree - the current rule, while it takes some >> trivial learning, is easy to understand and communicate and is reflected >> well in other parts of the language. Also, additions to object literal >> syntax might make this more...weird: >> >> x => { [abc](def = function() { huh() }) { blahblahblah } }; >> >> "But it's an object literal, obviously!" >> > > Yes, there's always a trade-off, some futures are foreclosed by syntax > changes of this sort. > > Is it worth it? Hard to say, crystal ball service not answering the phone > ;-). Still, the motivation for that strawman I wrote in 2011 lives on. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
