Named Arrow Functions

[Leonardo Wolter]

Yeah., that's what I meant.

My proposal is not a keyword, but an hidden variable included at functions
(e.g. arguments).
Does arrow functions have any limitations about that?

2015-08-11 21:35 GMT-03:00 Daniel Ehrenberg <dehrenberg at chromium.org>:

> I assume you mean more like this (without factorial):
>
>  x.map((x) => do {
>         if (x <= 1) {
>             1;
>         } else {
>             x * recur(x - 1)
>         }
>     });
>
> One issue is that it's hard to add keywords to JavaScript at this
> point. If they're not from the tiny set of remaining reserved words
> (enum, anyone?), they can be users' identifiers, and have to be based
> contextually on some enclosing syntax, like yield is.
>
> Another downside is that then, arrow functions have a distinct and
> less powerful method of recursing (e.g., nested functions won't be
> able to see the binding to the outer one).
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Leonardo Wolter <leocwolter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > What about a clojure like recur hidden variable binded to the
> bottom-level
> > function?
> >
> >  x.map(factorial(x) => do {
> >         if (x <= 1) {
> >             1;
> >         } else {
> >             x * recur(x - 1)
> >         }
> >     });
> >
> > 2015-08-11 21:26 GMT-03:00 Daniel Ehrenberg <dehrenberg at chromium.org>:
> >>
> >> In addition to being hard to parse in general, I don't think this
> >> would play very well with the async/await proposal
> >> https://tc39.github.io/ecmascript-asyncawait/ , which wants to have
> >> arrow functions like
> >>
> >> async (x) => ...
> >>
> >> Because we can't count on async as a keyword, your proposal would
> >> create an ambiguity.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Jacob Parker <
> jacobparker1992 at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > I did look, but couldn’t find anything on named arrow functions were
> not
> >> > included. I do sometimes find cases where I want recursion inside a
> class
> >> > function definition, and still need access to `this`. Was it just
> seen as
> >> > syntax bloat, or were there any complications to implementing it?
> >> >
> >> > Obviously a contrived example, but something like this (using do
> syntax
> >> > too)
> >> >
> >> >     x.map(factorial(x) => do {
> >> >         if (x <= 1) {
> >> >             1;
> >> >         } else {
> >> >             x * factorial(x - 1)
> >> >         }
> >> >     });
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > es-discuss mailing list
> >> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150811/c9285b24/attachment.html>