Introduction, comprehensions beyond arrays
brendan at mozilla.com
Sat May 11 07:04:28 PDT 2013
André Bargull wrote:
>> >/ I see that I have a TODO note in 10.5.3 that says "don't create an
>> />/ arguments binding for arrow functions". However, I'm not sure that we
>> />/ actually had consensus on that point.
>> We never had an alternative that I know of. The wiki went further and
>> said 'arguments' is an error; this was based on meeting feedback.
>> >/ I'm with you on in thinking that arrows shouldn't rebind arguments
>> />/ but I think there may have been some push back on that.
>> No one wants arguments in arrows.
>> The question is, should an outer arguments binding be visible? I think
>> so, now that Jason raises the question.
> This is a different position from , isn't it? The notes from
> January  as well as  might be of interest, too.
Thanks for the reminder -- I should have remembered this.
My appeal to arguments.callee was kind of a torture-test for why arrow
bodies should not be strict by fiat. But it shouldn't prevail if we
think "expression TCP" is more valuable. I'd be interested in Jason's
>  https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029196.html
>  https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-March/029189.html
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss