what kind of problem is this fat arrow feature trying to solve ?

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 16:25:32 PDT 2013


Yes, I've missed this and if Kevin already studied real world use cases and
that's the result then it's OK.

What is misleading about this topic is that it looks like a shortcut for
common functions but it is absolutely not like that and this should be
emphasized quite a lot, IMO

We have function, function with a `this` in it, bind with `this` made
immutable and arrow with `this` made immutable and not the whole closure in
it ... this is a very specific and different thing I need to get familiar
with.

I will, eventually.

Thanks



On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Andrea Giammarchi <mailto:andrea.giammarchi@**gmail.com<andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
>> >
>> October 2, 2013 2:25 PM
>>
>> Thanks. And do "we" know which one is the most common case or any reason
>> we won't have the same in ES6 ? I see both options as a win. Having only
>> the => version looks like a huge limit in arrow potential.
>>
>
> We went through the case analysis here, perhaps you missed it?
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2012-**March/021873.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021873.html>
>
> quoting:
>
> """
>
> If the consensus is that two arrows are too confusing, and we must choose
> to prefer either object literal or blocks, then the code I sampled suggests
> that object literals as expression bodies are rather uncommon (only 16 out
> of 5705 BTF candidates, or 0.2%).
>
>     // Not so bad...
>     x =>  ({ a: 123 });
>
> kevin
>
> """
>
> This is based on Kevin Smith's quantitative study:
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2012-**March/021126.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021126.html>
>
> Please study carefully!
>
> As noted many times, going back to the March 2012 meeting, we also talked
> about -> but some on TC39 view it as "an arrow too far". See
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2012-**March/021875.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021875.html>
>
> a followup from me to the notes:
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2012-**March/021872.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021872.html>
>
> /be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131002/87f628fa/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list