let function

[Brendan Eich]

Guillermo wondered whether we couldn't have

let f(x) { return x*x; };

as a shorthand for the block-bodied arrow

let f = (x) => { return x * x; }

The obvious question is how to enable expression bodies?

let f(x) x * x;

looks like it is missing the =>, but if we require that:

let f(x) => x * x;

then why not for the block-bodied case too, so readers are better 
reminded that `this` is from the outer scope, ditto `arguments`?

Decisions, decisions!

/be

Brendan Eich wrote:
> Your point about decorators vs. hoisting is good, everyone should keep 
> it in mind. Still doesn't mean we can't add a special form for const 
> function, as followups aver.
>
> /be
>
> Alexander Jones wrote:
>> On 19 May 2015 at 02:02, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org 
>> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     This seems like a better shorthand to discuss, compared to `let
>>     function` (which function-in-block covers already, as noted).
>>
>>
>> function-in-block does not have the same semantics as the proposed 
>> "let function". It hoists, thus has no TDZ, and appears to preclude a 
>> reasonable decorator syntax behaviour, and it has no provisions for 
>> const binding, i.e. "const function".
>>
>>     let f(x) => y
>>
>> appears attractive indeed, but by virtue of it being an arrow 
>> function, has lexical this and no prototype property. Also no 
>> generator syntax, unless I'm missing something?
>>
>> Cheers
> _______________