I tend to prefer 'const function' since it seems more consistent with other
types of modifiers such as 'public' and 'private' covered in the classes as
sugar strawman
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Chris
If const functions and 'standard' functions are available to a
developer - what on average will a developer likely use. Will a
security conscious dev lean towards const functions?
If const functions are preferred then maybe the function shorthand
notation - if it goes ahead - should map to const
I really dislike the hash notation for this purpose. I have no problem with
either const(){} or const function(){}. The verbosity of using const is well
worth the legibility.
- peter
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Kevin Curtis kevinc1...@gmail.com wrote:
If const functions and 'standard'
Or rather, the legibility is well worth the verbosity of using const...
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
I really dislike the hash notation for this purpose. I have no problem with
either const(){} or const function(){}. The verbosity of using const is well
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation seen
at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:const_functions.
Someone -- my apologies, I forget who -- suggested that const functions would
make the old
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:const_functions.
Someone -- my apologies, I
On Sep 6, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Chris Marrin cmar...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at
On Sep 6, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:const_functions.
Someone -- my apologies, I forget who --
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Chris Marrin wrote:
On Sep 5, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:const_functions.
Someone -- my apologies, I forget who -- suggested that const functions
would make the old never-implemented ES3 joining optimization safe. (If you
don't
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
At the last EcmaScript meeting, I proposed the const function notation
seen at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:const_functions.
Someone -- my apologies, I forget who -- suggested that const functions
11 matches
Mail list logo
