On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:07 PM, Rob Campbell wrote:
> 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 };
This does not work. How do you know that what follows the first | is not a
formal parameter?
Formal parameter syntax looks like expression syntax -- currently Expression
covers FormalParameterList. Arrow function syntax relies on this.
/be
>
> 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
