On May 7, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Jorge wrote: > But if I wanted a shorter syntax, I would no doubt choose ruby blocks' > syntax, it's even shorter yet and it's familiar already to millions of > programmers.
Ruby and Smalltalk before it had blocks for most of their usable lives. JS does not. Having break, continue, return, this, arguments, and perhaps other features of JS change meaning in a block to refer to aspects of the outer function's activation (if still active) is a big change. It adds new runtime error cases. It's certainly not simpler than shorter function syntax. Not all JS hackers are Rubyists. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
