Const functions with joining is ready for discussion

Peter van der Zee ecma at qfox.nl
Tue Sep 7 05:13:20 PDT 2010


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 <ecma at 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
> worth the legibility.
>
> - peter
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Kevin Curtis <kevinc1846 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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 functions.
>> Especially for anon functions - where the function keyword stands out
>> as being rather verbose.
>>
>> Or with hashes:
>> ##(x) {...} // const function
>>
>> ---
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100907/a85ca43b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list