{Spam?} Re: ... A community is writing the spec...

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Sep 11 01:21:33 PDT 2014

but only one made it ... I am not comparing but many developers are already
confused about fat not behaving like thin.

Yes, thin should be part of ES6 ... it's way easier to spec as just regular
anonymous `function` shortcut , I still don't understand why it has been
left out.

The `function` AFAIK was the boring/too long problem to sugar, we've got 3
other ways to define it in other flavors and yet not a shortcut as thin
arrow would simply be.

Best Regards

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:

> Alex Kocharin wrote:
>> > Everybody else that used to pass a different context to do something
>> more meaningful
>> Does anyone really do that? Except for fine-tuning performance? As far as
>> I remember, people either use closures or .bind() stuff.
> Yup.
> Andrea, if you want -> (which you do) can you kindly stop complaining that
> => is not ->? That's like saying blue cheese is bad because it isn't
> cheddar. Both are great!
> /be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140911/1bd1ab36/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list