Another paren-free gotcha

Quildreen Motta quildreen at
Thu Sep 29 09:04:32 PDT 2011

2011/9/29 Peter van der Zee <ecma at>

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Quildreen Motta <quildreen at>
> wrote:
> > I'm not sure how this is much different from the rules you have now with
> > ASI, though if this were such a problem, a block statement could be
> required
> I'm trying to make sure we don't add another feature that we'll later
> describe as "yeah, wish we could take that out, but we can't, that
> ship has sailed". This ship hasn't sailed yet and if it does, I'd like
> it to be as clean as possible.

Yeah, perfecting things is something I can appreciate. My point, however,
was that I couldn't see a problem with Waldemar's first example since they
are consistent with the current ECMAScript semantics (ASI). I personally
find languages with few divergent semantic constructs better because you
have less to learn and worry about when coding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list