Pseudo headless arrows

Fabrício Matté ultcombo at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 22:33:48 UTC 2016


The `==>` token would look like a new operator, which developers would have
to look up in order to know exactly what it does. It is more confusing than
helpful, IMHO.
Also `==>x` has the same length as `_=>x`, the latter not introducing any
new syntax (although it does employ an ugly unused identifier).

By the way, this may be of interest to you: Headless Arrow Functions
proposal <http://bterlson.github.io/headless-arrows/>.

/fm

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Peter van der Zee <ecma at qfox.nl> wrote:

> <searched for it><excuses if>
>
> There are two ways of writing argument-less arrows;
>
> () => x;
> _ => x;
>
> (Where `_` can be any identifier, of course.) I understand why we
> can't drop the head entirely so if we're forced to type anything at
> all, anyways, why not at least make it simpler by pressing two
> different keys instead of three/four:
>
> ==> x;
>
> I don't believe this leads to syntactical problems anywhere, not even
> with arrow functions themselves and it's future proof for at least the
> cases I'm aware of.
>
> It's a minor addition but I think it's much nicer than either of the
> two alternatives we currently have, which lead to a lot of
> inconsistencies (it's spaces and tabs all over again).
>
> Semantics are the same otherwise as `() => x` would be.
>
> - peter
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160421/10d1787c/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list