Shorter syntax for arrow function assignment

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at
Wed Oct 25 11:43:48 UTC 2017

I 100% agree it's a terrible idea, and this proposal's syntax sucks for
this very reason.

I'll note a few things:

1. The main proposal AFAICT is for `let foo() {}`, not `foo() {}`.
2. It does *not* syntactically conflict with object methods, because it's
only valid as a statement.
3. It conflicts with existing ASI, but only with `let` and `var`, where
this is currently unambiguously valid (it's open real estate with `const`):


// Parsed in both sloppy and strict as:
let foo;

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 16:09 dante federici <c.dante.federici at>

> The use case fading away doesn't mean you can drop support for it, or that
> it won't still be in use.
> Please stop trying to push your "shorthand" syntax of:
> ```
> myFn() {
> }
> ```
> It's already been pointed out in multiple cases that:
> 1. The current usages are not "outmoded"
> 2. The proposed syntax has misleading `this` binding without the arrow
> 3. Blocks, ASI, and the object shorthand notation either conflict or make
> it vague how to interpret
> This isn't a beneficial syntax moving forward, and it doesn't seem to add
> anything other than "I don't like typing '='".
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list