Yes, that is still how mocha does things. Mocha is not the best example though, because it is not compatible with arrow functions. Mocha uses `this` to expose extra functions to your test case. (I always use a wrapper around mocha to avoid these issues)
Subject: Re: Pseudo headless arrows > @John: Good point. > IIRC, Mocha was (is?) one of such test frameworks that inspect the > function's `length` property in order to determine whether the author > intends the test to be run asynchronously (i.e. the first argument receives > a function that must be called when the test is done). > Whether that is a good practice is questionable, however. > > /fm > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:44 PM, John Lenz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> _=>{} is a function that takes one param and is not equivalent to >> ()=>{}. Some test frameworks inspect the function and care about the >> difference. >> On Apr 21, 2016 3:34 PM, "Fabrício Matté" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
