Yes, I have correct my self about it in a next letter. The point is that it doesn't change the rule
2017-09-12 19:32 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Martin <[email protected]>: > const object = { > get // not a complete declaration statement - so no implicit comma here > y: 2 // continuation of a previous line > } > > The `get` declaration actually *is* a valid declaration (see shorthand > property names here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/ > JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Object_initializer# > New_notations_in_ECMAScript_2015). > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Алексей <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry, but I don't see any problems with example you provide: >> >> const object = { >> get // not a complete declaration statement - so no implicit comma here >> y: 2 // continuation of a previous line >> >> z: x // complete declaration statement and next line is not an operator >> - implicit comma here >> in: "foo" >> } >> >> 2017-09-12 18:53 GMT+03:00 Claude Pache <[email protected]>: >> >>> There are [no LineTerminator here] rules in the ES grammar, in order to >>> prevent the most pernicious trap when using ASI: >>> >>> ``` >>> return // implicit semicolon here >>> a = b >>> ``` >>> >>> Those [no LineTerminator here] rules have not been included in >>> constructs that don’t need them. As a result: >>> >>> ``` >>> const object = { >>> get // no implicit comma here >>> y: 2 >>> >>> z: x // no implicit comma here >>> in: "foo" >>> } >>> ``` >>> >>> So, no, it’s not a good idea. >>> >>> —Claude >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Jeremy Martin > 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853> > @jmar777 <https://twitter.com/jmar777> / @j <https://stream.live/j> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
