In addition to being hard to parse in general, I don't think this
would play very well with the async/await proposal
https://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/ , which wants to have
arrow functions like
async (x) => ...
Because we can't count on async as a keyword, your proposal would
create an ambiguity.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Jacob Parker <jacobparker1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did look, but couldn’t find anything on named arrow functions were not
> included. I do sometimes find cases where I want recursion inside a class
> function definition, and still need access to `this`. Was it just seen as
> syntax bloat, or were there any complications to implementing it?
>
> Obviously a contrived example, but something like this (using do syntax too)
>
> x.map(factorial(x) => do {
> if (x <= 1) {
> 1;
> } else {
> x * factorial(x - 1)
> }
> });
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
