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

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Mon May 9 07:18:30 PDT 2011


Dave, Kyle, Andrew et al

Thanks for your feedback, very much appreciated. To clarify, my gist was in
no way meant to be an "official" proposal of any sort, mostly for my own
personal, academic benefit :)

In that spirit, I've updated the gist based on the comments and I've set a
goal to implement (or at least attempt to implement) my idea using Narcissus
- again, purely for my own benefit, however I will certainly share my
findings for those that might be interested.

Again, thanks for the constructive feedback!

Rick

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Dave Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110509/cf79736a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list