On Jan 31, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Mark Filipak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (Sorry. What I meant to write is below.)
>
> May I make a pitch for an expanded function syntax? This example will
> say it all (I hope).
>
> What I have to write now:
>
> getFirstChildOfElementWithTagName(Papa, 'baby');
>
> What I'd like to be able to write:
>
> getFirstChildOfElement(Papa)withTagName('baby');
If you put a . after the first ) then you can write such a chained
expression today. It costs one more function object and one more .
character, but if it's important to you for clarity, those costs may
be worth paying.
> function getFirstChildOfElement(Papa)withTagName(babyTagName) {
> alert(arguments[0].tagName); // Show Papa's tag name
> alert(arguments[1]); // Show desired baby's tag name
> }
>
> I don't think such an expanded capability would have any backward
> compatibility issues. It would make function calls more readable and
> easier to remember.
It's unusual syntax; some including me would argue that it's less
readable. It's too late for a non-trivial sugaring such as this
without stronger motivation, in my opinion. Others should weight in
if they feel differently.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
