The `==>` token would look like a new operator, which developers would have to look up in order to know exactly what it does. It is more confusing than helpful, IMHO. Also `==>x` has the same length as `_=>x`, the latter not introducing any new syntax (although it does employ an ugly unused identifier).
By the way, this may be of interest to you: Headless Arrow Functions proposal <http://bterlson.github.io/headless-arrows/>. /fm On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Peter van der Zee <[email protected]> wrote: > <searched for it><excuses if> > > There are two ways of writing argument-less arrows; > > () => x; > _ => x; > > (Where `_` can be any identifier, of course.) I understand why we > can't drop the head entirely so if we're forced to type anything at > all, anyways, why not at least make it simpler by pressing two > different keys instead of three/four: > > ==> x; > > I don't believe this leads to syntactical problems anywhere, not even > with arrow functions themselves and it's future proof for at least the > cases I'm aware of. > > It's a minor addition but I think it's much nicer than either of the > two alternatives we currently have, which lead to a lot of > inconsistencies (it's spaces and tabs all over again). > > Semantics are the same otherwise as `() => x` would be. > > - peter > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
