three small proposals: the bikeshed cometh!
brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Apr 29 11:39:15 PDT 2010
On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Mike Samuel wrote:
> 2010/4/29 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>:
>> On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Alex Russell wrote:
>> Some small, pre-colored panels for the shed. Given that these are
>> matters of syntax and not semantics, please believe me when I
>> suggest that
>> the warts discussed herein present sharp edges that should be
>> rounded off by
>> the committee -- not because they're interesting in any way but
>> because the
>> primary users of the language are shipping (bad) fixes around the
>> billions of times a day. Such rank inefficiency needs sunset date.
>> This is not just about syntax. Let's ignore the threat of being
>> accused of
>> bikeshedding and evaluate holistically.
(What mailer are you using that mixes up citation levels so badly?)
>> The hash or number sign is not obviously all about functions. I've
>> tried out
>> the other alternatives in recent talks. No one is really
>> enthusiastic about
>> any of
>> λ foo() (bar + baz)
>> ƒ foo() (bar + baz)
>> \foo() (bar + baz)
>> (the foo name is optional but should be expressible).
>> The Greek lowercase lambda is actually an incompatible change from
>> (perfectly legal identifier there). It's also hard to type on most
> I'm not arguing for lambda since it is a pain to type, but this is not
> true if you make it a restricted production, and make the name non
> <lambda> (no line separator) <identifier>
> cannot appear in a valid ES3 program.
Yeah, true -- but then that's a different proposal.
Requiring the name loses for most use-cases and users, as far as I can
[massive tail overcite trimmed -- at least it was not topcited :-P.]
More information about the es-discuss