Very interesting point. Is there another way to get this optional comma proposal through while being backwards compatible? I really like the idea.
If it worked like ASI, then surely it would allow the multi-line `get` case?: ```js { get x() //valid syntax after "get", so no comma inserted } ``` Can someone remind me of the problem doing it this way, if any? (I'm not sure it has been mentioned yet) On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 18:11 Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can assure you that will likely never happen, because it's a pretty > obvious identifier to use in more generic or high-context scenarios. > (Think: `get(foo, bar)`, and I've done that plenty of times.) > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 03:05 Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can't `get` be relegated to a reserved/keyword, like `let`, `yield` and >> `await` were? Just curious about that kind of process & decision?... >> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 05:25 Matthew Robb <matthewwr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Okay what would be the cons to allowing semi colons in place of commas >>> in object literals? >>> >>> I have an aversion to dangling commas. They're like, >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2017 7:40 PM, "Jordan Harband" <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would take commas over a mixture a thousand times over; I'd do the >>>> same with semicolons - it's not the presence or absence of these tokens >>>> that causes a problem, it's the ambiguity. >>>> >>>> Introducing the same horrific ambiguity around semicolons, for commas, >>>> does not sound like a good idea. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Алексей <aga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > Think of it from a different way: if there would be no ',' how would >>>>> you >>>>> > react on the idea of adding it? Peaty sour every one would decide >>>>> that would >>>>> > be a complete nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> This sort of hypothetical isn't useful; you're not proposing switching >>>>> over to *solely* comma-less, you're proposing a *mixture* of comma and >>>>> comma-less being allowed. That has very different ergonomics than >>>>> either all-comma or all-comma-less. >>>>> >>>>> The hypothetical comma-less language would also have made many >>>>> different syntax decisions over the years to accommodate that, which >>>>> current JS has *not* made. This causes the sorts of problems that >>>>> Claude/etc have pointed out. >>>>> >>>>> ~TJ >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss