Why do arrow functions need to reflect on themselves? I think it is more useful for all code "directly" inside a non-arrow function to be able to reflect on that non-arrow function. If I wrote an arrow function and then found I wanted it to reflect on itself, I'd be happier rewriting it as a non-arrow function than I would with either * the complexity of a whole new set of special forms for arrow functions to reflect on themselves, or * (as in the original proposal) making it more difficult for code in an arrow function to reflect on their containing non-arrow function.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
