I know, that's why I wrote that a [no LineTerminator here] restricted
production would be required (which I just forgot to include in my
mini-grammar sent to Isaac, guh).
Dave assumed we wouldn't add such a restriction. But if we do, then
there's no backward incompatibility because right now you cannot run
(a,b,c) up against {foo(); bar = baz()} on the same line.
/be
Rick Waldron wrote:
A few months ago, I made this same suggestion, here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07021.html
And David Herman very succintly explained here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07031.html
Rick
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
Yes, an identifier is required. It would not be possible
to define an unnamed function in this way.
Why not express an anonymous function, though? Definition !=
expression. As usual, an expression *statement* could not
start with ( and consist entirely of a function-keyword-free
anonymous function expression.
I should have stopped at "could not start with". Doesn't matter
how it might end, an expression-statement can't start with
'function' now and, under the proposal, could not start with the (
beginning a formal parameter list.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
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
