arrow function syntax simplified

Brendan Eich brendan at
Thu Mar 29 07:15:55 PDT 2012

This is all moot now -- see meeting notes and followups. Thin arrow is 
not going to make it, we want one arrow. The |this| parameter for opting 
into dynamic rather than default-lexical |this| also died. Method 
definition shorthand covers the only strong use-case, as Kevin's 
analysis shows.


Herby Vojčík wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> I hate the CoffeeScript deviation, though. It's just confusing for
>>> anyone who ever learned that fat-arrow binds |this| and thin-arrow
>>> doesn't.
>>> True. On the other hand, "all arrows bind |this|" is also quite simple
>>> and easy to remember.
>> Yes, and I kept the part of the proposal that allows |this| as a leading
>> arrow formal parameter, including with parameter default value. This
>> suggests a slight variation on the strawman, per your suggestion:
>> x -> { return this.x; } // lexical this for thin arrow
>> x => this.x // as for fat arrow
>> (this, x) -> { return this.x; } // dynamic this, five letter syn-tax
>> (this, x) => this.x // ditto for the expression-body form
> I like this very much. Clear, orthogonal, readable.
> It would be nice if this could get through.
>> /be
> Herby
> P.S.: Dynamic this no-arg function could also use one-arg shorthand?
> this => this.x
> this -> { return this.x; }

More information about the es-discuss mailing list