arrow syntax unnecessary and the idea that "function" is too long

Dave Herman dherman at
Sun May 8 21:20:50 PDT 2011

Do I understand you that the idea here is 'function' without the 'function' keyword? I think this has a pretty bad backwards-incompatibility with ASI:

x = (x)
{ return x }

Which way should this parse?

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at> wrote:

Just read and I'm buzzing with the idea of Lisp style functions as "

inspiration" for a short hand. While I realize the idea is likely absurd, but I'm thinking in terms of concepts that _all_ JavaScript devs know and understand. 

This is a super simple, first-pass, rough-draft, not-too-serious, request-for-comments...


On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Faisal Vali <faisalv at> wrote:

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Jorge <jorge at> wrote:
> On 08/05/2011, at 05:52, Faisal Vali wrote:
>> (...) I find the
>> aesthetics of the arrow-syntax far more consistent with javascript's
>> C-based-syntactic roots than the preprocessor-tainted '#' (...)
> Consistent ?
> -> in C has a *totally* different meaning !

Yes, but that is why I alluded to a syntactic commonality and not a
semantic one.
 But, I can see how the disparity in semantics might bother some programmers.

es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list