Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

For all new syntax proposals or discussions, I recommend writing a Babylon plugin + Babel transform to prove that it's even possible before presenting it for feedback. Rick On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:26 AM Isiah Meadows wrote: > Also, most decent text editors, including

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Also, most decent text editors, including Atom, Sublime, Vim, and Emacs, support such snippets. (Vim/Emacs call them macros, but they're functionally the same concept mostly.) On Tue, Nov 14, 2017, 01:48 T.J. Crowder wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:22 PM,

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Laurentiu Taschina < source.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Are you worried about typing more characters? Use an IDE with > > auto-complete, or snippets. > > The problem can not be easily fix'ed with snippets. You forgot to say *why not*, veering off into not

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

the *this* in fat-arrows is irrelevant to frontend-developers who prefer to use static functions to manipulate json-data, rather than class instantiated-objects which are difficult to serialize / reconstruct when baton-passing between frontend <-> backend. On 11/14/17, Naveen Chawla

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Arrow functions are preferable primarily because they don't allow a new "this" which is otherwise the cause of a lot of confusion/bugs. The other reason is terseness. ()=>{} / input=>output etc. So what value are you adding for introducing a shorthand for an already defunct construct (function)?

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

> Who uses functions instead of arrow functions and methods these days, anyway? (I know, people who haven't adopted ES2015+) In my previous message on the paragraph where I talked about how "let" would suffer the same if it was longer I had some words about how we'll eventually reach the stage

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

That sounds like a major V8 bug that [should be reported][1] - there should be zero performance difference between an arrow function and a normal ES5 function. They're completely equivalent apart from ES5 functions being constructible and arrow functions forming a closure around the current call

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:14 AM, T.J. Crowder < tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:56 AM, J Decker wrote: > > Arrow functions passed as callback to Node.js addons execute 20% > > slower than regular 'function()' functions. > > **Wow**. Is that

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:56 AM, J Decker wrote: > Arrow functions passed as callback to Node.js addons execute 20% > slower than regular 'function()' functions. **Wow**. Is that written up somewhere one could read more? When you say "Node.js addon," are you excluding built-in

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:11 AM, T.J. Crowder < tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Naveen Chawla > wrote: > > > > Who uses functions instead of arrow functions and methods these > > days, anyway? (I know, people who haven't adopted

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Naveen Chawla wrote: > > Who uses functions instead of arrow functions and methods these > days, anyway? (I know, people who haven't adopted ES2015+) Laurentiu's been fairly clear about his/her use case: Named inline callbacks. I don't

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Hahah... - Michael On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Naveen Chawla wrote: > Who uses functions instead of arrow functions and methods these days, > anyway? (I know, people who haven't adopted ES2015+) > > On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 09:53 Bob Myers wrote: > >>

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Who uses functions instead of arrow functions and methods these days, anyway? (I know, people who haven't adopted ES2015+) On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 09:53 Bob Myers wrote: > Obviously we should use 퓕 or something like that. I'm sure it's been > proposed, although I can't find it at

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Obviously we should use 퓕 or something like that. I'm sure it's been proposed, although I can't find it at the moment. Yes, I know all the reasons why that's a bad idea. But come on. Are you worried about typing more characters? Use an IDE with auto-complete, or snippets. Are you worried about

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

> The only benefit seems to be saving a few characters. The costs being an increase in complexity in the ways you can define a function, an increase in the complexity of parsing for functions, and the need to endure a candidate stage process for the removal of a few characters. To me, the costs

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

> I'm having trouble believing saving a couple of characters will have the weight to make it happen I think this is the crux of the issue. What is the cost vs. benefit of the proposal, and do these benefits outweigh the tradeoffs? The only benefit seems to be saving a few characters. The costs

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Laurentiu Taschina wrote... So the TL;DR of all that is: You think `func` (or whatever) can be an identifier or keyword based on context. Well, quite true, it's certainly been done before (`async` for instance). All I'll say is: Good

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

> You're not going to have any luck getting `func`, `fn`, or `def` as a keyword for this. Too much existing code would break. I'm certain I've used all of those even just in my own code. Just about *any* short keyword is going to have the same problem. I think understand what you're thinking.

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > An idiom that assigns names to arrow functions arguments: Heh, I actually *wrote* that at one point in my reply to Laurentiu, then removed it because it was still clunky. :-) It's less clunky when you combine

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

An idiom that assigns names to arrow functions arguments: ```js let add, mul; //used to name arrow functions const sum = [1, 2, 3].reduce(add = (a, b) => a + b); const product = [1, 2, 3].reduce(mul = (a, b) => a * b); ``` ___ es-discuss mailing

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Laurentiu Taschina wrote: > So useless for callback usage, which a very big chunk of the use cases. That's very different from the statement "only regular functions can have names" but I can see how you got there. :-) So naming inline

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

Doesn't work if it's not pre-declared. [1] (see jsfiddle, a bit too long to post here) So useless for callback usage, which a very big chunk of the use cases. While you can argue to kind-of get enough information (it says it's "each" in chrome) with the other way, and having a name there is just

Re: Shorthand for "function" keyword

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Laurentiu Taschina wrote: > > I would like to propose the standard allow for shorthand form for > the normal "function" keyword. > > ... > > Advantages & Motivation > > only regular functions can have names, but being so clunky people >

Shorthand for "function" keyword

Hello, I would like to propose the standard allow for shorthand form for the normal "function" keyword. No other special meaning, just shorter (preferably at most 4 characters). *Advantages & Motivation* - the keyword often takes as much if not more space then the arguments, almost