On May 29, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > P.S.: though, btw, IIRC, you said the same when an year ago I proposed arrow > functions or Ruby's blocks and they were refused because of grammar reasons; > today we want them to standardize ;) I mean, perhaps what seems not so needed > and complicated to implement at first glace, later can become interesting and > useful.
Block-lambdas face an uphill battle on several grounds, semantic as well as syntactic. Arrow functions are "just syntax", the only issues are the ones listed on the strawman: ArrowFormalParameters vs. AssignmentExpression ambiguity in LR(k), and the remaining block vs. object literal disambiguation problem. Neither is in ES.next. I'd say arrow functions are closer to getting to Harmony, with some on the committee wanting a "late save" for ES.next if we can get the grammar issues resolved. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
