A few arrow function specification issues
herby at mailbox.sk
Mon Apr 23 09:36:45 PDT 2012
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 21 April 2012 01:22, Allen Wirfs-Brock<allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>> 7) All of the above questions also apply to functions defined using concise method syntax in object literals or classes. Should the same answers apply to them?
> I'd prefer if concise method syntax stayed simple syntactic sugar for
> functions. Methods obviously need dynamic this. If you combine that
But they are not, already. There is that thing with home / defineMethod
and super-expressions (and I am for it, it is a good thing).
> with changes like the above, then you have implicitly introduced a
> third kind of function that cannot be described as (simple) syntactic
> sugar for any of the other two. That would be unfortunate, IMO.
More information about the es-discuss