I don't see a conflict between return and being an expression language.
Smalltalk and E both have return. In Scheme terms, this is simply
call-with-escape-continuation. Gedanken again was probably the first to
have this right with their escape construct, which E borrowed. E's method
syntax
On 16 July 2015 at 17:29, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
When simply generating simple JS code from something else, this
restriction is a perpetual but minor annoyance.
Indeed, one motivation for do-expressions is better support for compilers
targeting JS. And for some of those, not
Just wanted to say I was playing around with the idea of using parens as
block-expressions this morning and I REALLY like it. It doesn't feel like
an added feature at all it just seems natural since blocks don't normally
produce a value.
The questions I think that remain are:
1) return?
2) yield?
On 07/16/2015 13:35, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
I echo this. E is a dynamic language with many similarities with JS,
including a similarly C-like syntax. In E I use
everything-is-a-pattern-or-expression all the time. When I first moved
to JS I missed it. Now that I am used to
On 16 July 2015 at 15:21, Bob Myers r...@gol.com wrote:
With all do respect, none of this syntax tinkering makes any sense to me.
I've been programming JS for 15 years and never noticed I needed a try
block that returns a value.
Long ago I programmed in a language called AED that had valued
: Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com, es-discuss@mozilla.org
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:18:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Generalize do-expressions to statements in general
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https
I echo this. E is a dynamic language with many similarities with JS,
including a similarly C-like syntax. In E I use
everything-is-a-pattern-or-expression all the time. When I first moved to
JS I missed it. Now that I am used to the JS statements-are-not-expressions
restrictions, I no longer do,
Mark S. Miller wrote:
I echo this. E is a dynamic language with many similarities with JS,
including a similarly C-like syntax. In E I use
everything-is-a-pattern-or-expression all the time. When I first moved
to JS I missed it. Now that I am used to the JS
statements-are-not-expressions
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
I echo this. E is a dynamic language with many similarities with JS,
including a similarly C-like syntax. In E I use
everything-is-a-pattern-or-expression all the time. When I first moved
to JS I missed it. Now that I am used to the JS
All you are proposing is to allow the braces to be dropped from a
do-expression, right? That's an obvious tweak, although I'm not sure if it
really improves readability. (Other than that, do-expressions are already
intended to work as you describe, using the completion value of the
statement list.
I don't see why you need parens at all, see my previous post. But I
wouldn't make the do-less forms the base syntax,; rather, only short-hands
for the general thing. In particular, because the ability to have an actual
block inside an expression is one primary motivation for having
do-expressions
The only gripes I have with do expressions is the inability to specify the
value produced in an obvious and uniform way, also are do expressions
capable of being labelled?
- Matthew Robb
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I don't see why you need
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I don't see why you need parens at all, see my previous post. But I
wouldn't make the do-less forms the base syntax,; rather, only short-hands
for the general thing. In particular, because the ability to have an
On 14 July 2015 at 15:04, Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com wrote:
The only gripes I have with do expressions is the inability to specify the
value produced in an obvious and uniform way,
Well, the completion value is fairly uniform. You mean an analogue to a
return in a function body?
On 14 July 2015 at 16:48, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I don't see why you need parens at all, see my previous post. But I
wouldn't make the do-less forms the base syntax,; rather, only short-hands
for
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
On 14 July 2015 at 16:48, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.com
wrote:
I don't see why you need parens at all, see my previous post. But I
I was reading a recent thread
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/allow-try-catch-blocks-to-return-a-value where
do-expressions simplified a common try-catch use case, and I was wondering
if `do` could be simplified to an expression? It would allow for this to be
solved very easily, but also add a lot
Interesting. Got me thinking. Here's an alternate proposal I'll call do
expressions without the 'do'.
At
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-expression-statement
we have the syntax of the expression statement. Ignoring sloppy let
nonsense, this says that an expression
To be perfectly honest, though, I'm not entirely sure the specifics of the
do-expression proposal, since Google is failing me here (can't find a thing
giving more detail than this mailing list). And as for what my proposal
here is, I forgot to mention that expression statements would be explicitly
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
To be perfectly honest, though, I'm not entirely sure the specifics of the
do-expression proposal, since Google is failing me here (can't find a thing
giving more detail than this mailing list). And as for what my
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Isiah Meadows impinb...@gmail.com wrote:
To be perfectly honest, though, I'm not entirely sure the specifics of the
do-expression proposal, since Google is failing me here (can't find a thing
giving more detail than this mailing list). And as for what my
21 matches
Mail list logo
