arrow function syntax simplified

[Brendan Eich]

Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
> 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?

See 
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax&rev=1332877190 
-- removed by next revision:

# 2012/03/29 06:05 show differences to current version 
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax&rev=1333001151&do=diff> 
strawman:arrow_function_syntax 
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax&rev=1333001151> 
Updates per TC39 meeting today brendan


The optional leading |this| parameter without an Initialiser (parameter 
default value) was long-hand for dynamic-this binding, the "thin arrow" 
(->) of previous versions. We agreed with Waldemar on cutting down a 
list of five "iffy" design decisions, see his meeting notes. Thin-arrow 
and leading |this| fell quickly, and the desire for "one arrow" was clear.

The detailed rationale for killing leading |this| is less clear, but 
without it we have fewer function forms as you note (not sure where your 
6 count came from, but no worries). The "YAGNI" and "dynamic-this is a 
foot-gun" arguments favored leaving out -> or (this, arg1, ~~~ argN) 
syntax. These are not absolute judgments, obviously. They're KISS and 
"when in doubt, leave it out" relative judgments.

/be