On Thu Feb 26 2015 at 8:22:55 PM Claude Pache <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Le 27 févr. 2015 à 02:04, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > >> For most of these, my first reaction is meh. They all make sense and > violate no principle, but are they worth it? > >> > >> I do not like the arrow function behavior. For anything named > function.something occurring within an arrow function, I'd expect it to be > about the lexically enclosing non-arrow function. I do not object to the > idea that there be such a special form that is about the arrow function, > but it needs to be spelled differently. I have no concrete suggestion > though. > > > > We have to work with the reserved words we have available, there really > need to apply equivalently to all functions, arrow or otherwise defined. > The only other available keyword that seems at all suggest of these use > cases is 'in' > > > > in.callee (or whatever) > > in.count. > > in.arguments > > > > If we went that route I'd probably still stick with 'function.next' for > that use case > > > > Allen > > That one has just popped in my mind :-) > > =>.arguments > > I was thinking exactly this while I was reading Allen's post. Would class method definitions use `class.*`? Seems like the wrong abstraction..? Maybe all functions and method definitions use `function`, while arrows use `=>` (or whatever) to preserve correspondence to possible outer function? Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
