simple shorter function syntax
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Sat Jul 24 11:51:00 PDT 2010
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> > [Good point about LL(∞) snipped.]
> >> * To give you an idea of how important parsing is, the 280 North folk
> once told me that parsing made up 25% of the load time for 280 Slides.
> > Ollie, was that with browser-side Objective-J compilation, or with the
> server translating and feeding the Obj-J-lowered-to-JS code to the browser?
> I believe it was with the browser being passed preprocessed source, but
> i'll harass them to find out.
> > I have polled audiences at talks in the last year about shorter function
> syntax, see first two links at http://brendaneich.com/presentations/.
> Results mainly for fun but somewhat informative (to me at any rate) were not
> resoundingly in favor of a new and much shorter keyword to use instead of
> > This was before
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:shorter_function_syntaxwas proposed, so I didn't ask the audiences to clap for its # syntax.
> > People like the expression-closure idea, although syntax needs to be
> hammered out. See
> I personally am not too fussed about the reduced typing -- if people really
> wanted reduced typing we could simply adopt "\" which seems to be the common
> symbol used for a function.
[fragments] frequently appear in literal strings. Right now, the only
quoting hazard this introduced is quotes and backslashes in nested literal
strings. (Is this true?). If you use backslash in syntax elsewhere in the
language, then it becomes an additional quoting hazard that's easy to miss.
+1 on "#".
> > /be
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss