March 28 meeting notes

Brendan Eich brendan at
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 mailing list