Shorter syntax for arrow function assignment

Brian Blakely anewpage.media at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 17:15:57 UTC 2017


ICYMI: my stance is that ES5- functions are already outmoded - and are
rapidly becoming the lesser-used option - so it would be a waste of a
syntax win.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Michał Wadas <michalwadas at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for omitting function keyword between export and function name.
>
> Declaring arrow functions without arrow in syntax - nope, nope, nope.
>
> On 24 Oct 2017 7:01 pm, "Andrea Giammarchi" <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> to me this `export foo() {}` makes sense only as shortcut for `export
>> function foo() {}` and not as arrow, because arrow missing context and
>> arguments will mislead everyone exporting a named function.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Brian Blakely <anewpage.media at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As arrow function const assignments become the norm and non-arrows the
>>> exception, allowing syntactical cruft to fall away makes sense to me.  It
>>> might be premature based on overall 2015 adoption, but I don't see this
>>> trend reversing.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:54 PM, /#!/JoePea <joe at trusktr.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can be confusing because it is too similar to non-arrow functions.
>>>> The arrow syntax is clear in meaning.
>>>>
>>>> */#!/*JoePea
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Brian Blakely <
>>>> anewpage.media at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This syntax is shorter, easier to write, and arguably easier to read.
>>>>> What else does it need to offer?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>> this fails styleguide sanity-check.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we currently have 3 common styles of declaring functions:
>>>>>> 1. foo = function () {...}
>>>>>> 2. function foo () {...}
>>>>>> 3. foo = () => {...}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> does this extra 4th style offer anything new to justify making the
>>>>>> javascript language even less consistent than it already is?  i say
>>>>>> no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/25/17, Brian Blakely <anewpage.media at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > A prevalent pattern has emerged:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > `export const foo = ()=> { };`
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Taking a cue from short method syntax, this comes to mind as a
>>>>>> possible
>>>>>> > improvement:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > `export const foo() { };`
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Even better if we assume const:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > `export foo() { };`
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > That is delicious.  Thoughts?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171024/fe66f6dd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list