arrow function syntax simplified

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at
Tue Mar 27 18:43:46 PDT 2012

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Luke Hoban <lukeh at> wrote:

> > >Luke Hoban wrote:
> > > The do expressions serve a separate purpose of changing the meaning of
> return (but not break and continue)
> > Dave proposed at
> >
> > that do expressions be fully TCP compliant. No way to be half-pregnant
> :-/.
> True - I misspoke there.  The concern related to break and continue I had
> in mind was separate from what I noted - it is the issues raised at
> But my primary point was just that in Rick's examples, there doesn't
> appear to be any reliance on TCP at all.  Had => supported blocks on the
> RHS as in the original arrow proposal, all the code samples would be
> simpler, simply removing the 'do'.  I believe this will generally be true
> too.

All of the cases that use () => do { } are doing so where they require
multiple statement expressions that inherit lexical |this|.

Unless I've missed something, the examples are correct.

IINM, these meet the TCP use case:


> Luke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list