I'm liking the block-lambda syntax, I think more than the arrow. One possible
shortening could be to exclude the second bar (|) if no argument variables are
specified.
{| // some block of code };
I don't *think* we'd ever start an expression with a single | operator, so
there should be no ambiguity.
On 2011-06-23, at 19:27, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Jorge wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, my 2 cents. Thanks!
>>
>> {|| ... } for shorter *function* syntax is my favorite too. +1(e9)
>
> Thanks -- I am continuing to maintain arrow function syntax and block lambda
> revival as strawmen.
>
> Arrows now require only two-token lookahead, ignoring the #!~ prefixes
> proposed for non-configurable, non-writable, and non-enumerable property
> assignments in object initialisers. This is in order to support either an
> object literal body or a braced non-empty block body where the block's first
> statement is not a labeled statement.
>
> Block lambda revival has more grammar changes, but so far they check out.
>
>
>> Also, if any { block } could be a lambda, perhaps we won't need that (nor
>> any new) syntax for block-lambdas.
>
> We would need new syntax still, for formal parameters.
>
> Making blocks be expressions requires unifying the ObjectLiteral and Block
> productions. I don't know how to do this in without at least two-token
> lookeahead, and it is not a backward compatible change if done for all places
> where Statement : Block in the current grammar.
>
>
>> Also, I'd prefer to know/see clearly when a function is being call()ed, so
>> I'm not very fond of paren-free calls: foo(bar) is clearly an invocation,
>> unlike foo bar,
>
> Your example is too abstracted to be fair. Concretely, the latter will
> *always* look like foo {|| bar} ... and never foo bar for any bar.
>
>
>> and readability is more important than saving a few keystrokes.
>
> Readability arguments support the paren-free syntax too. You can't win this
> by selective arguing.
>
>
>> The C language is still (and -ISTM- will be for a long time) important, so
>> -IMO- every little bit of JS's C-like syntax is a plus: less to learn: an
>> old, popular, widely used, well-known, and familiar syntax.
>
> C by way of Java, and both are boat anchors. Again, where pray tell is
> 'function' in C?
>
>
>> JS -unlike other languages- is important enough that it does not need to
>> follow these (dubious) trendy fashions to become popular. Nor to survive.
>
> Nothing trendy about Smalltalk blocks unless you are a Rubyist.
>
>
>> Proper punctuation aids comprehension and we're programming, not writing
>> quick SMSs.
>
> This is silly, you're making vague arguments that cut both ways.
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
