March 28 meeting notes
brendan at mozilla.org
Thu Mar 29 13:37:34 PDT 2012
Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> I was thinking, it should be possible to extend arrow syntax to allow
> an optional name? As in:
> f(n) => n==0 ? 1 : x * f(n-1)
I know you're not proposing, but this would have to be a separate
proposal. I fear adding it to arrow function syntax will lose consensus.
For one thing, the binding forms all have a keyword in front (even
formal parameter and catch variable bindings do). This doesn't.
Currently arrow functions occur as an alternate AssignmentExpression
right-hand side. They are expressions. What you sketched would have to
be produced at statement level to be a declaration, but then it lacks a
prefix keyword and so is harder to see (or perhaps just "inconsistent"
in some way that is foolish to worry about?). Not sure, but there's a
More information about the es-discuss