This syntax is shorter, easier to write, and arguably easier to read. What else does it need to offer?
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, kai zhu <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 > this fails styleguide sanity-check. > > we currently have 3 common styles of declaring functions: > 1. foo = function () {...} > 2. function foo () {...} > 3. foo = () => {...} > > does this extra 4th style offer anything new to justify making the > javascript language even less consistent than it already is? i say > no. > > > On 10/25/17, Brian Blakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > A prevalent pattern has emerged: > > > > `export const foo = ()=> { };` > > > > Taking a cue from short method syntax, this comes to mind as a possible > > improvement: > > > > `export const foo() { };` > > > > Even better if we assume const: > > > > `export foo() { };` > > > > That is delicious. Thoughts? > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
