Introduction, comprehensions beyond arrays

Brendan Eich brendan at
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 [1], isn't it? The notes from 
> January [2] as well as [3] 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 
thoughts here.


> [1]
> [2] 
> [3]
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list