On May 29, 2012, at 11:59 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> ...
> I appreciate this reason ;), but I like semicolon for another reason -- the
> parens suggest "factoring out" the "o.", as if
>
> o.(stuff1; stuff2)
>
> means the same thing as
>
> o.stuff1; o.stuff2
>
> where stuff1 and stuff2 are not identifiers, but (to take an extreme stance)
> anything that can appear within an expression statement between an initial
> "o." and a terminal ";".
>
> Although it does not fall out of the factoring interpretation, I think it is
> still natural for the expression as a whole to have o as its value, since
> expression statements are not normally thought of as having a value.
>
> However, I think it is just too much syntax to have both this and mustache.
> We should choose at most one. I would prefer neither to both.
I think that
o.{
p1: expr0,
p2() {return this.p1},
get p3 () {someSideEffect(); return this.p1}
};
and
o.(
p1 = expr1;
p2());
p3 //I didn't include this case in the bnf I wrote up
}
are syntacticly distinctive enough that there would be no reason to trade them
off against each other. They should each be consider based upon their unique
utility. An advantage of my recent strawman (and what we discussed at the
TC39 meeting) is that it leveraged one construct for a larger number of use
cases. That is generally a good think, if it doesn't create confusion.
Unfortunately may strawman may not meet that mark.
If you are concerned about the overall syntactic complexity budget of the
language, then we aren't limited to only trading the above two constructs off
against each other. There are other new and relatively complex syntactic
embellishments that we have adopted that IMO may not have as much general
utility as either of the above. If we are concerned about the syntactic
complexity budget, we should be looking globally at all the proposals. But,
that is another conversation.
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
