Quoting https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports
`export default` HoistableDeclaration
`export default` [lookahead ≠ `function`] AssignmentExpression `;`
Questions:
* Do these grammar rules mean that you have to put anonymous function
expressions in parentheses? Is
On Nov 19, 2014 6:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Quoting https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports
`export default` HoistableDeclaration
Note that the actual spec. text has a [Default] grammar parameter after
HoistableDeclaration. That,'s important.
Benjamin Gruenbaum wrote:
Correct, I mean value types (or objects) that have value semantics and support
operator overloading.
We'll probably talk about that tomorrow in a break-out. At least I hope to!
More after this week's TC39 meeting.
/be
___
We'll probably talk about that tomorrow in a break-out. At least I hope
to!
Thanks, this sounds awesome. It's definitely one of the most awaited ES7
features and it's definitely highly applicable in a lot of code I'm writing
(and in a lot I'm reading).
If there is any help you guys need with
* Do these grammar rules mean that you have to put anonymous function
expressions in parentheses? Is that desirable (given that it’s a frequent
use case)?
No, HoistableDeclaration[Default] includes FunctionDeclaration that lacks a
BindingIdentifier.
OK, I take it the following wasn’t
Am 18.11.2014 um 22:03 schrieb Brendan Eich:
Christian Mayer wrote:
What I actually sometimes really miss in JavaScript (having a big C++
background) are destructors.
(I haven't checked if they are in any new version proposal, though)
No, as JS has no stack storage class, only
On Nov 19, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
* Do these grammar rules mean that you have to put anonymous function
expressions in parentheses? Is that desirable (given that it’s a frequent
use case)?
No, HoistableDeclaration[Default] includes FunctionDeclaration
Christian Mayer wrote:
Am 18.11.2014 um 22:03 schrieb Brendan Eich:
Christian Mayer wrote:
What I actually sometimes really miss in JavaScript (having a big C++
background) are destructors.
(I haven't checked if they are in any new version proposal, though)
No, as JS has no stack
OK, I take it the following wasn’t viable?
that’s correct. We wanted the initialization of a function like:
export default function () {}
to be hoisted, just like:
export function f() {};
I suspect that that will confuse people: they will expect an anonymous function
to be an
(For the history of this thread to refer to it later)
At the meeting it was decided not to go with `map` and `filter` sitting on
`Map.prototype`, but instead to use iterators in the way like:
```
map
.entries() // returns an iterator
.map((v, k, m) = { ... })
.filter((v, k, m) = { ... })
(For the history of this thread to refer to it later)
At the meeting it was decided not to remove `keys()` and `entries()`, and
keep the `(value, againValue, set)` callback params signature.
The reasons:
- Consistency with maps and to reuse callbacks from arrays;
- Even if it may seem a wrong
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
OK, I take it the following wasn’t viable?
that’s correct. We wanted the initialization of a function like:
export default function () {}
to be hoisted, just like:
export function f() {};
I suspect that that
12 matches
Mail list logo
