As arrow function const assignments become the norm and non-arrows the exception, allowing syntactical cruft to fall away makes sense to me. It might be premature based on overall 2015 adoption, but I don't see this trend reversing.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:54 PM, /#!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > It can be confusing because it is too similar to non-arrow functions. The > arrow syntax is clear in meaning. > > */#!/*JoePea > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Brian Blakely <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
