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

Dave Herman dherman at mozilla.com
Mon May 9 06:51:02 PDT 2011



Andrew Dupont <mozilla at andrewdupont.net> wrote:

>Presumably it could be defined in the grammar so as to prohibit a
>newline in that very place, much like how the "return" statement is
>defined.

Yeah, but that's one of the sharper corners of JS as is-- I think it would be pretty subtle and error prone. And some people might want to align their braces.

>Alternatively: someone in this thread asked whether there was any
>purpose to blocks in ES when they aren't used for try/catch/finally or
>other such purposes. In other words, is there any reason not to
>restrict them to those use cases and thus remove this ambiguity?

This would be a serious backwards-incompatibility, and with block scoping they will become very important. My crystal ball envisions a web full of

    if (true) {
        ...
    }

;-)

Dave

>
>Cheers,
>Andrew
>
>
>On May 8, 2011, at 11:20 PM, Dave Herman wrote:
>
>> 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?
>> 
>> Dave
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> 
>> Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just read
>https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-November/008218.html
>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... 
>> 
>> https://gist.github.com/961495
>> 
>> Rick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Faisal Vali <faisalv at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:04 AM, Jorge <jorge at jorgechamorro.com>
>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 mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

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


More information about the es-discuss mailing list