es-discuss Digest, Vol 51, Issue 5
petermichaux at gmail.com
Sat May 7 09:31:54 PDT 2011
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that David Bruant has a good point. We *need* a shorter syntax
> because we advocate the use of map/reduce, etc., which require simple
> anonymous functions.
No. We don't "need" syntactic sugar. The current function syntax is
working and we are talking a few characters difference, not hundreds.
Map/reduce don't "require" syntactic sugar.
You may "want" shorter syntax but we've been getting by well without
it. I think framing it as a "need" or a "requirement" is dishonest to
> As to why we should choose # rather than coffescript's ->, there are two points:
[long discussion ensues based on taste]
There are so many more important issues to address.
More information about the es-discuss