On 11.11.2011 22:48, gaz Heyes wrote:
On 11 November 2011 18:29, Dmitry Soshnikov
<dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com <mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is why the topic is called "*(Almost)* everything...". In
general case we may not include this case with label-statement
into proposal, since the construction you wrote isn't practice
IMO. But, we should consider also theoretical things and this case
it can be better to avoid the case at all then to solve it --
especially if there is no much profit in practice from it. Though,
if we can manage it, why not?
Another thing isn't a block statement a no-op? So :
x={};
x wouldn't be undefined or anything since a blank block statement
shouldn't return anything.
Obviously here it must be an object initialiser.
We basically may even restrict to use these statements as expressions
only in some local expressions domain. E.g. only for assignments. There
are alternatives which we shouldn't afraid to consider.
Then if it returns undefined then how would a block statement actually
work:
{}/1
You'd have to make a block statement return undefined to make sense.
So as you can see you are adding complexity to the syntax in both the
developer level and the sandboxing level. There are a ton of problems
this would create.
I don't see it. I started the proposal not because I thought out "some
interesting stuff to discuss", but with concrete practical reason. I
referred to Erlang where I everyday with much more convenience than in
current JS may use all those complex expression on RHS.
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
