On 2015-05-19 06:09, Bergi a.d.be...@web.de writes:
Alternatively just use a single equals sign with a parameter list:
let f(x) = y
let f() = y
This looks very nice indeed.
Alan
--
OpenPGP Key ID : 040D0A3B4ED2E5C7
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015, at 15:08:13 -0700:
On May 18, 2015, at 2:20 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Nozomu Katō wrote:
It is a Syntax Error if Disjunction contains Quantifier ::
QuantifierPrefix except QuantifierPrefix :: { DecimalDigits }.
* the `s`, or `.dotall` flag: the dot `.` matches every character,
including newlines;
* true support of Unicode, namely: escape sequences such as `\Lu`
for uppercase letter, or `\X` for grapheme cluster.
Why not submit proposals for these?
You are right, but procrastination and other
Sorry, I accidentally posted an unfinished e-mail. I was about to add
the link of a html version of my proposal to my previous post:
http://www.akenotsuki.com/misc/srell/lookbehind_proposal.html
Nozomu
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Your point about decorators vs. hoisting is good, everyone should keep
it in mind. Still doesn't mean we can't add a special form for const
function, as followups aver.
/be
Alexander Jones wrote:
On 19 May 2015 at 02:02, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Steve Fink sph...@gmail.com wrote:
That visually collides with destructuring for me.
let [a, b] = foo();
let {a, b} = foo();
let f(a, b) = foo(); # Very different
I almost expect that last one to use f as a custom matcher of some sort,
given the previous
Since we have block scope, and we have continue statement to which we can use
in loops to jump back to the conduction statement part.
Than can we consider making label stamens moveable by its name.
I'll like to say that the side effect would be sudo(pseudo) function, example:
function
On 19 May 2015 at 02:02, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
This seems like a better shorthand to discuss, compared to `let function`
(which function-in-block covers already, as noted).
function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed let
function. It hoists, thus has
function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed let
function. It hoists, thus has no TDZ, and appears to preclude a reasonable
decorator syntax behaviour,
But that would not fix the decorator/function problem. Specifically, we
would not want to have a situation where let
C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Steve Fink sph...@gmail.com
mailto:sph...@gmail.com wrote:
That visually collides with destructuring for me.
let [a, b] = foo();
let {a, b} = foo();
let f(a, b) = foo(); # Very different
I almost expect that last
Yes. I proposed it and plan to do so again. Likewise with const classes. In
both cases, it imposes additional tamper-proofing restrictions along the
lines of the StrongScript proposal in order to support writing defensively
consistent abstractions.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Kevin Smith
On 05/19/2015 12:23 AM, Alan Schmitt wrote:
On 2015-05-19 06:09, Bergi a.d.be...@web.de writes:
Alternatively just use a single equals sign with a parameter list:
let f(x) = y
let f() = y
This looks very nice indeed.
That visually collides with destructuring for me.
let [a, b] = foo();
12 matches
Mail list logo
