arrow function syntax simplified

Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at
Sun Apr 1 01:30:05 PDT 2012

Oh, wait, just have read Crock's article on => functions. A Python's style of passing manual `this'? That's interesting (why it's not specified on the wiki? where Crockford took it from? did you discuss it in a close ECMA meeting?). Inconsistent again with other functions.

So, let's see, overall we have .. 6 types of functions in JS, and all have their own specific features. That's again interesting, if won't cause confusion.


On Apr 1, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:

> On Apr 1, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>>> Ah, good. But one can use the above (pseudo-)desugaring to predict the behavior of arrow functions, right? That is, there is no observable difference.
>>> There is, again, the difference in terms of delegation to the target's [[Construct]] in case of a bound function, see the spec ("bound" per ES5, of course, since, as Brendan notices, it's not just a syntactic sugar, but a new special type of functions).
>> OK. Ignoring [[Construct]] and .prototype, any other differences?
> Well, "ES5-bounds" also do not have `prototype' property, but delegate to the target's `prototype'. However, yes, there is the (main) difference in respect of supporting TCP (if I understand correctly, since had no time to follow the complete thread) -- return and break/continue jumps to the parent frame instead of working with the function itself.
> Lexical `this' is the only similar thing to bound functions, so we should not call => functions as synonym to bound functions. You may say, => function _as well as_ a bound captures `this' lexically, but in contrast with it, it has other features.  In my later analysis, I'll specify them as a new type of functions --  AF (Arrow Function) -- in addition to FE, FD, NFE, BF, etc., with many own features, but not just a syntactic sugar -- neither for FE, nor for BF.
> Dmitry

More information about the es-discuss mailing list