lexical 'super' in arrow functions?
samth at ccs.neu.edu
Tue Dec 4 05:34:01 PST 2012
On Dec 4, 2012 4:59 AM, "Claus Reinke" <claus.reinke at talk21.com> wrote:
> ES, for all its faults, has a spec on the formal side -which is a very
> good thing!- but unfortunately also on the not directly readable side.
> The reason is that the spec is essentially a reference implementation -
> even though it doesn't use a formal language, it consists of "what to
> do with this piece of code" instructions. Understanding these
> instructions requires knowledge and understanding of the reference
> machine code patterns, instructions and system libraries.
> This makes the spec not so useful for quick lookups or for
> understanding what those language features are for.
> It would enhance the usefulness of this important asset -the spec-
> if each section would start with one or two informal paragraphs
> on the most salient points of each feature.
> The formal parts would still be there to confirm the details, to guide
> implementers, and as the normative part of the spec. But the informal
> parts would make quick lookups succeed, would give guidance on
> what is being formalized, and would support program construction
> ("what is this good for?" rather than just "how do I implement this?").
Language specification is a difficult task, especially when handling a
complex language, legacy spec style, and wide variety of audience
background, not to mention a committee with lots of feedback and opinions.
We are very lucky that Allen does the job he does.
That also means we shouldn't make it harder, or ask the spec to bear
excellent books describing how to use the language and what various
features are for, including Dave's new book. That's the place to go for
description and explanation, not the spec.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss