> normal functions ... remain necessary for any use case where `this` needs
to be determined at invocation time.
On its way to being an edge case.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "ES5 functions" - by which you mean, *normal* functions - are not
> "outmoded", they remain necessary for any use case where `this` needs to be
> determined at invocation time.
>
> Nothing should ever produce an arrow function without `=>`; and exports
> assuming `const` is an interesting idea, but explicit > implicit, and
> "typing less" is simply not a goal worth optimizing for by itself.
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Robb <matthewwr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There is practically no gain to suggest this syntax for arrows anyway as
>> a module has no this binding you are creating a perpetually contextless
>> function whereas using this shorthand syntax for a normal function makes
>> some sense. You lose implicit return regardless.
>>
>>
>> - Matthew Robb
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > functions are already outmoded
>>>
>>> I don't know where you come from but to me:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> // this ain't outmoded at all
>>> const obj = {
>>> method() { return this === obj; }
>>> };
>>>
>>> // this ain't outmoded at all
>>> class Any {
>>> method() { return this instanceof Any; }
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> And a module that provides mixins is definitively not outmoded at all
>>> ```js
>>> export method() {
>>> return this !== undefined;
>>> };
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Omitting the arrow is everything but a syntax win here.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Brian Blakely <anewpage.me...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> At current, sans an explicit assignment, the pragma `foo() {...}`
>>>> should throw.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, dante federici <
>>>> c.dante.feder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Another annoying thing JS has to deal with is:
>>>>> ```
>>>>> // implicitly 'var'
>>>>> someVar = 10;
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> So, something like:
>>>>> ```
>>>>> myFn() {
>>>>> }
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be considered as:
>>>>> ```
>>>>> var myFn = function() {
>>>>> }
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> with what semantics exist now. Not best practices, but what is
>>>>> currently interpreted in the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd 100% agree that, as a shorthand, this is nice:
>>>>> ```
>>>>> myFn() { }
>>>>> const myFn = () => {}
>>>>> ```
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is what I mean. But I'm not the full implementation of
>>>>> JavaScript.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
