On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > François REMY wrote: >> >> I kinda like it. > > > I don't, but what's more, Tab's point has come up already in TC39 in similar > settings. I doubt this will fly. It's hard to see 'return' in an expression > as different from 'return' at statement level. That's a readability problem > that I suspect would sink this if it were to get to TC39.
I don't agree. The return-statement keyword is very much distinguishable from the return-lambda keyword. How often do you make the mistake for a function declaration vs function expression? On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: > This doesn't seem simpler than: > > arr.map((x,y)=> '<' + x + 'class="' + this.getClassName(y) + '"/>'); > > Your other variants that shorten the 'arguments' name are better, but > don't appear to offer much of a win. They also prevent you from using > the argument list to good effect, such as by giving them descriptive > names or using destructuring and rest args. I can see that point. However, as François points out, we very often use lambdas in contexts where the arguments don't really need a name in simple expressions, and could be named if you need slightly more complex lambdas. As for spread, you'll still have access to the arguments array (or $ or whatever you wanna end up with). A simple slice will suffice. - peter _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
