Make comma at the end of line optional

Naveen Chawla naveen.chwl at gmail.com
Wed Sep 13 13:05:08 UTC 2017


Very interesting point. Is there another way to get this optional comma
proposal through while being backwards compatible? I really like the idea.

If it worked like ASI, then surely it would allow the multi-line `get`
case?:

```js
{
    get
    x() //valid syntax after "get", so no comma inserted
}
```

Can someone remind me of the problem doing it this way, if any? (I'm not
sure it has been mentioned yet)



On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 18:11 Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can assure you that will likely never happen, because it's a pretty
> obvious identifier to use in more generic or high-context scenarios.
> (Think: `get(foo, bar)`, and I've done that plenty of times.)
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017, 03:05 Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can't `get` be relegated to a reserved/keyword, like `let`, `yield` and
>> `await` were? Just curious about that kind of process & decision?...
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 05:25 Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay what would be the cons to allowing semi colons in place of commas
>>> in object literals?
>>>
>>> I have an aversion to dangling commas. They're like,
>>>
>>> On Sep 12, 2017 7:40 PM, "Jordan Harband" <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would take commas over a mixture a thousand times over; I'd do the
>>>> same with semicolons - it's not the presence or absence of these tokens
>>>> that causes a problem, it's the ambiguity.
>>>>
>>>> Introducing the same horrific ambiguity around semicolons, for commas,
>>>> does not sound like a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Алексей <agat00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Think of it from a different way: if there would be no ',' how would
>>>>> you
>>>>> > react on the idea of adding it? Peaty sour every one would decide
>>>>> that would
>>>>> > be a complete nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sort of hypothetical isn't useful; you're not proposing switching
>>>>> over to *solely* comma-less, you're proposing a *mixture* of comma and
>>>>> comma-less being allowed.  That has very different ergonomics than
>>>>> either all-comma or all-comma-less.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hypothetical comma-less language would also have made many
>>>>> different syntax decisions over the years to accommodate that, which
>>>>> current JS has *not* made.  This causes the sorts of problems that
>>>>> Claude/etc have pointed out.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~TJ
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170913/16fe714f/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list