return when desugaring to closures
brendan at mozilla.org
Thu Aug 21 17:48:09 PDT 2008
On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
> Dave Herman wrote:
>> We all know about the benefits of specification by desugaring. (I do
>> know a thing or two about macros, ya know.) But desugaring only works
>> when the feature you want really *does* layer properly on top of an
>> existing feature. The simple reason we haven't specified `let' as a
>> desugaring into `function' is because we want them to behave
> Who is "we"?
That is clear from context: "we haven't specified ...".
> Brendan seemed to invite discussion about the semantics of let.
I was trying to get comments from users of JS1.7's let forms. The
keyword argument was not interesting to me. But this is es-discuss,
we can talk about whatever we want to do with ECMAScript futures.
> If the committee has reached consensus then those outside the
> could save time and keystrokes and focus on other things where
> there is
Rather than change the topic to complain about something that hasn't
happened (no ES4 spec yet), why not respond to the substantive point:
let != function-expression-call?
> How do outsiders know which proposals have reached committee
I said that many on the committee were in favor, notionally and in
some details, of much of JS1.7's "convenience features", and some
let as new var
destructuring assignment and binding forms
generators (modulo keyword issue)
So not everything is a blank slate in TC39 for ES-Harmony, nor should
More information about the Es-discuss