So, so? Just to be clear and to close the topic -- do we need it or -- no answer means "no" answer? Don't tell me then (in the future, in an year) that I didn't propose this idea before ;D
Dmitry. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Jorge, yes, similarly this conclusion was in my memory too. > > Dmitry. > > > On 19.12.2011 13:53, Jorge wrote: > >> On 19/12/2011, at 10:10, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote: >> >>> Have we already planned paren-free calls? Seems I missed approved >>> strawman. >>> >> >> Only for block lambdas, if I'm not mistaken: >> >> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/**014595.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014595.html> >> > >> >> <quote> >> >>> 3) Should paren free calls be introduced? >>> >> I'm not proposing this in general, and I do not believe anyone else on >> TC39 will. >> >> /be >> </quote> >> >> >> There's this too: >> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/**014587.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014587.html> >> > >> >> <quote> >> "You're ignoring the goal of providing paren-free block-argument call >> syntax for control abstractions that look like built-in control-flow >> statements." >> </quote> >> >> The thread was "block lambda revival": >> <https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/** >> thread.html#14563<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/thread.html#14563> >> > >> >> Cheers, >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
