arrow function syntax simplified

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Mar 27 14:28:39 PDT 2012


We went over this in the thread Isaac started. You'd need a [no LineTerminator here] between ) and {, and then the syntax looks too much like a juxtaposed parenthesized expression and block.

The latter problem, a lack of syntactic distinctiveness, also felled there entry mooted {(x)x} block-lambda alternative syntax.

/be

On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Russell Leggett <russell.leggett at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax
> 
> Use => only with an expression body (do-expressions if accepted allow statements and combined with => compete with block-lambdas).
> 
> Use -> only with body block, as for long-form function.
> 
> Just a thought - if a block is required on the RHS of the ->, why not just skip the arrow? I could be mistaken, but would it be just as easy grammatically to do:
> 
>     array.forEach((v, i) { if (i & 1) oddArray[i >>> 1] = v; });
> 
> instead of:
> 
>      array.forEach((v, i) -> { if (i & 1) oddArray[i >>> 1] = v; });
> 
> This way, there would only be one kind of arrow.  Without an arrow its basically just removing the keyword function, and therefore maybe a little bit easier to transition. With the arrow added, you can expect a bigger jump in semantics.
> 
> - Russ
> 
>  
> 
> I deferred other accretions.
> 
> In a rush here, comments and corrections welcome and I'll edit as I can.
> 
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120327/f61b680b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list