On Jun 26, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > Hi Allen, I agree that the current implicit literal semantics is > confusing, and that these are the two sensible alternatives. In E I > chose alternative #1 with a somewhat different escaping syntax. > However, now that you point it out, I see the advantages of #2. I > think I now prefer #2 but can live with either. > > Btw, as long as we're discussing this, let's re-raise what I consider > the more important syntactic issue: In the curly form, we should allow > any valid JS expression between the curlies. Last time it seemed we > had agreement on everything except how to specify grammar. From my > experiments with trying quasis, I think this is a crucial usability > issue
I'm working on specifying full expressions. I think I have a way to specify quasis in terms of both lexical and syntactic grammar elements that works fine for full expressions. Eliminating the $identifier form actually makes this simpler. I expect to have at least the grammatical parts of quasi in the ES6 draft before the next TC39 meeting. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
