March 28 meeting notes

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at
Thu Mar 29 14:03:59 PDT 2012

On 29 March 2012 22:37, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:

> 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.

Oh yes, definitely. Just thought experiments...

> For one thing, the binding forms all have a keyword in front (even formal
> parameter and catch variable bindings do). This doesn't.

Not quite: parameters in arrow functions don't either.

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?).

Ah, no, I was thinking of this as still being purely an expression, not
extending its meaning to be a declaration. That is, the function name is
only visible in the body. I completely agree that all declaration
statements should start with a keyword.

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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list