Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
including these, in addition to the existing shorthand syntaxes,
should make the following examples work.
var x = { value: 3, toString() 'string', valueOf() this.value };
class x { constructor { this.value = 3; } valueOf() this.value }
what you show above would be an expression bodied "concise method"
http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-method-definitions
<http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-method-definitions> That’s
a different beast from a FF “expression closure”.
These were consider but not adopted for ES6. Primarily because they
introduced grammar, ASI and/or other issues that at the time didn’t
see worth trying to solve.
To be precise, the full `function (args) expr` form inverts precedence,
creating fatal ambiguity. Here's an example from the old thread on an
equvalent problem that afflicted ES4's let expressions:
function f() {return "f"}
var x = 3;
var y = function (a) a ? f : x++(1);
print(y);
This should print "f" but it instead prints function f converted to a
string.
Expression closures are dead, IMHO. Even though the variant in object
literals could be supported.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
