Guillermo wondered whether we couldn't have
let f(x) { return x*x; };
as a shorthand for the block-bodied arrow
let f = (x) => { return x * x; }
The obvious question is how to enable expression bodies?
let f(x) x * x;
looks like it is missing the =>, but if we require that:
let f(x) => x * x;
then why not for the block-bodied case too, so readers are better
reminded that `this` is from the outer scope, ditto `arguments`?
Decisions, decisions!
/be
Brendan Eich wrote:
Your point about decorators vs. hoisting is good, everyone should keep
it in mind. Still doesn't mean we can't add a special form for const
function, as followups aver.
/be
Alexander Jones wrote:
On 19 May 2015 at 02:02, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This seems like a better shorthand to discuss, compared to `let
function` (which function-in-block covers already, as noted).
function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed
"let function". It hoists, thus has no TDZ, and appears to preclude a
reasonable decorator syntax behaviour, and it has no provisions for
const binding, i.e. "const function".
let f(x) => y
appears attractive indeed, but by virtue of it being an arrow
function, has lexical this and no prototype property. Also no
generator syntax, unless I'm missing something?
Cheers
_______________
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
