Introduction, comprehensions beyond arrays

Brendan Eich brendan at
Fri May 17 14:10:18 PDT 2013

Jason Orendorff wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at 
> <mailto:brendan at>> wrote:
>     André Bargull wrote:
>             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.
> No strong opinion. "Expression TCP" is nice, but not very valuable.

Nevertheless, that was where TC39 ended up. It was a good conclusion, 
since trying for "statement TCP" was threatening to suck up time and 
lose the consensus I forged for arrows.

> Assuming we do not want `arguments` bindings in arrows,

I sense we do not want, but we'll discuss it at next week's meeting, I'm 

> I guess using arguments in an arrow is almost certainly a mistake and 
> should be a SyntaxError.

That's the wiki'ed proposal ;-).

> We shouldn't be motivated either way by a desire to support 
> arguments.callee!

I know, I just used it as a stress-test. And then promptly forgot about it!


More information about the es-discuss mailing list