arrow function syntax simplified

Brendan Eich brendan at
Wed Apr 4 22:27:12 PDT 2012

Claus Reinke wrote:
> And I was surprised that both pro and cons camps continued the 
> discussion of recursive self and dynamic this naming as if no 
> workaround was available.

I don't think anyone is really pushing hard for a dynamic-|this| form 
(say, ->) right now. Perhaps some want it but the thread here has helped 
me, at least, stick to my YAGNI guns.

> To me, the ability to emulate the feature additions so closely in
> library functions suggests that some variation of fn and rec should go 
> into the standard library instead of adding such features to arrow 
> functions.

Why wouldn't we add arrows too? There's a usability and an 
efficiency/easier-optimizability case for them even with fn and rec.

> But perhaps there are reasons for
> preferring the language features over the library functions? 

Your point about synthesizing dynamic-|this| given lexical-|this| forms 
is good. It seems to me having fn, rec, and => is therefore best. What 
am I missing?

I do suspect people won't grok fn and rec, at least not with those 
names. They're very ML-ish or LISPy, not camelCaps JS-y.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list