:) Thanks for clarifying. I guess the part that I'm still questioning, though, is:
> 1) Arrow functions "express" mappings This is of course true, but is that not a bit exclusive? They're also great at: 1) Non-mapping iteration (e.g., `forEach()`) 2) Lightweight callbacks 3) Killing off 90% of `var self = this` occurrences. 4) ... not going to continue, speaking to the choir here. If there are grammar or aesthetic issues involved, I can (ahem) yield on that... but I'm struggling with the *conceptual* discriminating between what arrow functions are or aren't for. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think it's fairly self-evident that they are a natural fit for such use >> cases, but I find it less self-evident that they are inherently not useful >> for others (e.g., generators). I feel like I keep seeing the following >> (implied) argument: >> >> 1) Arrow functions are good for mappings >> 2) Generators aren't mappings >> 3) Arrow functions aren't good for generators. >> >> > That would be me. : ) > > I'm trying to look at things not just in terms of "what would be useful", > although that's important. I'm looking at the overall design of the > language, and understand the way all the parts fit together into a > beautiful whole. > > It's an aesthetic thing, which I can appreciate may be a little difficult > to swallow. > > FWIW, I would restate the argument as follows: > > 1) Arrow functions "express" mappings > 2) Generators "express" sequences > 3) Don't muddy the waters > > Anyway, I'm not really trying to convince anyone. I just think we should > reserve the right to have this discussion later, and not prematurely commit > to "=!>" or whatever. > > > > > -- Jeremy Martin 661.312.3853 http://devsmash.com @jmar777
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
