Purely from the standpoint of convincing people not to use fat arrows only because they look more cute or whatever, this would be a great addition to the language. The decision would then become which arrow is best for the use case, no longer some trivial aesthetic argument.
Le jeu. 25 oct. 2018 10 h 09, manuelbarzi <[email protected]> a écrit : > ok. > > as little example, what if - for any case - you would explicitly require a > function not to be auto-binded anymore, then in the current situation you > would need to switch code from fat-arrow `() => ...` to bureaucratic > `function() { ... }`. with thin-arrow you would just need to change symbol > `=` by `-`, ending in just `() -> ...`. i guess this simplicity may sound > trivial, but it would be aligned with and ease while coding, making es+ > still thinking beyond, upon this situations and similar others (apart from > the visible shortness and simplicity when writing `() -> ...` instead of > `function() { ... }`). > > let's bring a little example on expressing an operation to be applied on > an object by itself: > > ``` > const o = { > do(expression) { > expression.call(this) > } > } > > // cant apply or call on fat-arrow (as already binded to outer context) > //o.do(() => this.name = 'object') // won't work > > // would then need to switch it to wordy `function` expression > o.do(function() { this.name = 'object' }) > > // but following PROPOSAL1, would just be (shorter and simpler): > // o.do(() -> this.name = 'object') > > console.log(o.name) > ``` > needless to say, less characters, more compressed code. > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:10 PM Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Couple nita about your argunents: >> >> 1. Most commonly used implementations don't close over more than what >> they have to. If `this` isn't used, it's not closed over. The addition of >> one more variable to check has so little overhead you won't gain anything. >> >> 2. Deprecating anything in JS is hard in general. The little-used >> `arguments.caller` itself was a challenge. >> >> Not TC39, but I strongly doubt this would have any traction for these + >> your additional justifications against. >> >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 06:59 manuelbarzi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> taking this old discussion back a bit ( >>> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/arrow-function-syntax-simplified), why >>> shouldn't be a good idea to deprecate the use of "function" in pro of >>> thin-arrow "->", being applicable in same cases (including named function)? >>> >>> just a bit of code with more about proposals: >>> >>> const GLOBAL_FACTOR = 2 >>> >>> const result = [1, 2, 3].map(function(value) { return GLOBAL_FACTOR * >>> value }) >>> >>> // PROPOSAL 1 - normal anonymous function (same as fat-arrow, but >>> dynamic binding, nothing much new here as from previous proposals): >>> // const result = [1, 2, 3].map(value -> GLOBAL_FACTOR * value) >>> >>> >>> function applyFactor(value) { >>> return GLOBAL_FACTOR * value >>> } >>> >>> // PROPOSAL 2 - named function declaration (without 'function' keyword): >>> // applyFactor(value) -> GLOBAL_FACTOR * value >>> >>> // referenced function (following PROPOSAL 1): >>> // const applyFactor = value -> GLOBAL_FACTOR * value >>> >>> const sameResult = [1, 2, 3].map(applyFactor) >>> >>> justification i read against this proposal is mainly that thin-arrow may >>> bring "more confusion" and may "provide poor or no benefit" co-existing >>> with fat-arrow. but having both may bring devs the chance to understand the >>> differences in the learning process as any other feature. the only "big >>> deal" would be to be aware of fix vs dynamic binding, which is something a >>> dev must understand sooner or later, independently of syntax (it can be >>> just explained with traditional function() {} and .bind() method). >>> >>> on the other hand it would bring the chance to avoid over-using >>> fat-arrow when binding it's not really necessary (which may "save" internal >>> binding processing too). >>> >>> finally, a simpler and shorter syntax avoiding the requirement of the >>> keyword 'function'. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
