Introduction, comprehensions beyond arrays
brendan at mozilla.com
Fri May 17 14:10:18 PDT 2013
Jason Orendorff wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com
> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.com>> 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 , 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 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
I know, I just used it as a stress-test. And then promptly forgot about it!
More information about the es-discuss