"keyword function" might not be too bad, either...
--scott
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "function" function is the best out of all of the alternatives you
> mentioned.
>
> "Anonymous function declared with the function keyword" if it's not too
> wordy.
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 at 23:50 Eli Perelman <e...@eliperelman.com> wrote:
>
>> I've always referenced them as:
>>
>> Function declarations:
>>
>> function a() {}
>>
>> Function expression:
>>
>> const a = function() {}
>>
>> Named function expression:
>>
>> const b = function a() {}
>>
>> Arrow function:
>>
>> const a = () => {}
>>
>> Not sure it's 100% semantic or descriptive, but it's how I've
>> differentiated.
>>
>> Eli Perelman
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 12:56 PM T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder@farsightsoftware.
>> com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bit of a silly one, but begging the list's indulgence:
>>>
>>> I routinely explain various JavaScript topics to learners, including
>>> arrow functions, method syntax, etc. When I want to contrast "arrow
>>> function" (for instance) with functions defined with `function`, it trips
>>> me up, and often I end up saying/writing something awful like "`function`
>>> function". I've considered using "normal function" instead, but arrow
>>> functions are normal in today's world, as are functions defined with method
>>> syntax (although I'd usually call them methods), so it's...unsatisfying.
>>>
>>> But `function` function is just so clumsy. And a pedant (none of those
>>> here, surely!) could argue the definition (are generators `function`
>>> functions? they're defined with `function` [when you're not using generator
>>> method syntax], it just has a `*` after it).
>>>
>>> I've also considered "old-style function," but `function` functions
>>> still have a place in today's JavaScript, just not as prominent a place as
>>> they used to.
>>>
>>> A recent post to the list used "conventional function," but it may well
>>> have the same problems "normal function" does.
>>>
>>> My goal is to be clear, and *reasonably* accurate, without being overly
>>> pedantic.
>>>
>>> Any ideas? Should I just stop worrying and learn to love "normal
>>> function"? Is there a better term?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, folks.
>>>
>>> -- T.J. Crowder
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
