March 28 meeting notes

Domenic Denicola domenic at domenicdenicola.com
Thu Mar 29 06:23:56 PDT 2012


Great to gain consensus indeed. This looks just about as nice as it can be.

Minor question: There are no examples of "very empty" arrow functions, e.g. `=>` or `=> 5`. And from what I can tell reading the grammar , they are not allowed. Is this necessary? CoffeeScript's allowance of `-> (expr)` gives some nice-looking code, for example see [1].

Bigger question: It sounds like TCP was sacrificed in favor of maximal minimalism, which makes sense. But, is this strawman friendly toward future TCP endeavors, perhaps in ES.next.next? For example, if `do` expressions were specced in the way discussed previously, could putting one to the right of the => result in TCP semantics?

[1]: https://github.com/domenic/sinon-chai/blob/master/test/callOrder.coffee

-----Original Message-----
From: es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 02:30
To: Waldemar Horwat
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: March 28 meeting notes

Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> Consensus on:
> - Have only one arrow, namely =>
> - this is always static.  No provision for dynamic this.
> - Other than the treatment of this, the function behaves like a normal 
> function.  return, break, etc. behave as though the function body were 
> in a function(...){...}.
>
> To be discussed later:
> The thing that comes after the arrow:
> 1. Always an expression (possibly a do expression)?
> 2. A block if it starts with {, otherwise an expression.

See
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax -- I'm a bit tired from travel so may have made a mistake or two, and I know some of the examples should be better. Comments welcome.

Great to gain consensus on this today!

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



More information about the es-discuss mailing list