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
