Short Functions
David Griffiths
dxgriffiths at gmail.com
Wed May 25 22:18:02 PDT 2011
To emphasize the point... we need meat, not sugar.
And even then, maybe not even the meat.
On 22/05/2011, at 10:28 AM, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
I very much want short functions. However, the semantics of
JavaScript lambdas are so wonderfully simple.
Adding a semantically different callable thing is a huge mistake, in
my opinion. I'd love to be able to write
{|a, b, c| a + b * c }
or even
(a, b, c) -> { a + b * c }
or
#(a, b, c) { a + b * c }
instead of
function (a, b, c) { return a + b * c }
but I really don't want to replace our existing simple semantics.
I see a lot of the discussions of short function syntax seeming to
imply ruby-block semantics, with the "return returns from the parent"
idea. It would be great to separate those two concerns. They are
very different. One is sugar, the other is a much more radical change
to the way the language works, which I'm not altogether convinced is a
good or useful thing.
--i
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
More information about the es-discuss
mailing list