What do you call a `function` function?

[Isiah Meadows]

I just call them "regular functions", "function declarations", or
similar. I'll add "arrow" if there's an arrow, and "async" if there's
an `async` keyword.
-----

Isiah Meadows
me at isiahmeadows.com

Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
www.isiahmeadows.com


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:14 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net> wrote:
> "keyword function" might not be too bad, either...
>  --scott
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "function" function is the best out of all of the alternatives you
>> mentioned.
>>
>> "Anonymous function declared with the function keyword" if it's not too
>> wordy.
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 at 23:50 Eli Perelman <eli at eliperelman.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've always referenced them as:
>>>
>>> Function declarations:
>>>
>>> function a() {}
>>>
>>> Function expression:
>>>
>>> const a = function() {}
>>>
>>> Named function expression:
>>>
>>> const b = function a() {}
>>>
>>> Arrow function:
>>>
>>> const a = () => {}
>>>
>>> Not sure it's 100% semantic or descriptive, but it's how I've
>>> differentiated.
>>>
>>> Eli Perelman
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 12:56 PM T.J. Crowder
>>> <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bit of a silly one, but begging the list's indulgence:
>>>>
>>>> I routinely explain various JavaScript topics to learners, including
>>>> arrow functions, method syntax, etc. When I want to contrast "arrow
>>>> function" (for instance) with functions defined with `function`, it trips me
>>>> up, and often I end up saying/writing something awful like "`function`
>>>> function". I've considered using "normal function" instead, but arrow
>>>> functions are normal in today's world, as are functions defined with method
>>>> syntax (although I'd usually call them methods), so it's...unsatisfying.
>>>>
>>>> But `function` function is just so clumsy. And a pedant (none of those
>>>> here, surely!) could argue the definition (are generators `function`
>>>> functions? they're defined with `function` [when you're not using generator
>>>> method syntax], it just has a `*` after it).
>>>>
>>>> I've also considered "old-style function," but `function` functions
>>>> still have a place in today's JavaScript, just not as prominent a place as
>>>> they used to.
>>>>
>>>> A recent post to the list used "conventional function," but it may well
>>>> have the same problems "normal function" does.
>>>>
>>>> My goal is to be clear, and *reasonably* accurate, without being overly
>>>> pedantic.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas? Should I just stop worrying and learn to love "normal
>>>> function"? Is there a better term?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance, folks.
>>>>
>>>> -- T.J. Crowder
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>