ICYMI: my stance is that ES5- functions are already outmoded - and are rapidly becoming the lesser-used option - so it would be a waste of a syntax win.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michał Wadas <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for omitting function keyword between export and function name. > > Declaring arrow functions without arrow in syntax - nope, nope, nope. > > On 24 Oct 2017 7:01 pm, "Andrea Giammarchi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> to me this `export foo() {}` makes sense only as shortcut for `export >> function foo() {}` and not as arrow, because arrow missing context and >> arguments will mislead everyone exporting a named function. >> >> -1 >> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Brian Blakely <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
