On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote: > [...] > Hence my do-expressions: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:do_expressions > > or Brendan's subtly-disambiguated-block-statement-expressions: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:block_vs_object_literal > > If Brendan's idea can be made to work, and it's not too confusing, I'm pretty > sure I'd prefer it over do-expressions. > [...] > > Interesting. But I think I prefer do expressions over making JS parsing that > much more subtle. JS is already much to hard to parse, and other accepted > changes are already making it even more so.
Totally agree. I said at the last TC39 meeting that I've given up on arrow function syntax in full since it wants -> {} to return an empty object, while -> {let t = 42; return t*t;} is of course a block-bodied function. Without stronger parsing algorithms than the committee can agree to use for validation, *and* without some unknown way to be future-friendly to object literal extensions, I don't see a solution. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss