Wow that's fanatically disgusting. Please no.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 12:27 Bob Myers <r...@gol.com> wrote:
> To continue the "stupid idea of the day" series, I have often felt the
> need to indicate a return value other than as part of a `return` statement.
>
> Perhaps this is my BASIC background--the dialect I used all those years
> ago allowed an assignment to the function name to pre-specify a return
> value, which would then be used whenever the function finally finished.
>
> My initial suggestion is to use the `return =` syntax, which is a syntax
> error right now so it should not conflict with anything.
>
> Trivial examples:
>
> ```js
> function double(a) {
> const b = return = [];
> for (elt of a) b.push(elt*2);
> }
> ```
>
> ```js
> function bar() {
> const val = someCalculation();
> report(return = val);
> }
> ```
>
> Not to belabor the point, but of course there is no new functionality
> here; it's just a matter of conciseness. However, it could also perhaps be
> used to allow the use of arrow functions when you want to do something
> without returning its value but maintain the concise body form:
>
> ```js
> const a = () => doThing(return = a);
> ```
>
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> 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
