Questions re. final fat arrow syntax

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Sun Apr 8 01:05:55 PDT 2012


Not given. TC39ers (not all, just ones near me) started blenching (or is 
it blanching? no, blenching). The issue was muddled because the optional 
body-block was mixed in (i.e., the minimal arrow function, as in 
CoffeeScript, was just |=>| in the previous version of the strawman).

As I've said a couple of times here, we could try again to reach 
consensus on making () as empty arrow formal parameter list optional, 
and separately consider making an empty body-block optional. I'll work 
on the nearby blenchers before the May meeting and see about putting it 
on the agenda.

/be

Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>> 3. Are parenthese required for zero arguments or will
>>> let a = => doThis();
>>> syntax be permitted (in line with CS)
>>
>> This too is clearly specified by
>>
>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax#grammar_changes
>>
>> ArrowFormalParameters, second right-part.
>
> That seems useful. What’s the rationale for not support it?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Axel
>
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de <mailto:axel at rauschma.de>
>
> home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
> twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
> blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


More information about the es-discuss mailing list