Implicitly escaped $ (or not) in quasis?
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Jun 26 10:50:48 PDT 2012
On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Hi Allen, I agree that the current implicit literal semantics is
> confusing, and that these are the two sensible alternatives. In E I
> chose alternative #1 with a somewhat different escaping syntax.
> However, now that you point it out, I see the advantages of #2. I
> think I now prefer #2 but can live with either.
> Btw, as long as we're discussing this, let's re-raise what I consider
> the more important syntactic issue: In the curly form, we should allow
> any valid JS expression between the curlies. Last time it seemed we
> had agreement on everything except how to specify grammar. From my
> experiments with trying quasis, I think this is a crucial usability
I'm working on specifying full expressions. I think I have a way to specify quasis in terms of both lexical and syntactic grammar elements that works fine for full expressions. Eliminating the $identifier form actually makes this simpler. I expect to have at least the grammatical parts of quasi in the ES6 draft before the next TC39 meeting.
More information about the es-discuss