[Resending my 1:1 reply. /be]
We decisively rejected statement-level Tennent's Correspondence
Principle when I did a stand-up routine at the March 2012 TC39 meeting
and thereby got arrow function syntax accepted:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021872.html
C/Java/JS
This makes a lot of sense. It would obviate the need for braces, right?
> Yes, this is actually the direction I've been going in my thinking, based on
> the critique that export default is the only export form that isn't a binding
> form, especially when combined with a named function literal (`
I haven't played with Browserify too much myself (shame on me), but from
my own understanding of it and after talking to a friend who is more
familiar, yes I believe so.
We "link" our modules statically on the server to build a dependency
graph before we push to production. This linking step i
From: David Herman [dher...@mozilla.com]
> Moreover, Yehuda has urged me to consider
>
>export x = 17;
>
> as sugar for
>
>export let x = 17;
I'd urge `const` instead of `let`, as `const` discourages the footgun of
action-at-a-distance mutable `with`/global-like bindings that I keep talk
I really like the way this sounds, just wanted to submit my approval :D
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
> > It occurs to me that this is valid under the current grammar:
> >
> > import { default as foo } from "foo";
>
Meant to send the message to es-discuss!
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brian Di Palma
Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why is concise body for method definition dropped?
To: Brendan Eich
Was there any desire to support Rust style expressions if enclosed
within '{
On Jun 5, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> It occurs to me that this is valid under the current grammar:
>
> import { default as foo } from "foo";
> export { foo as default };
>
> We've discussed using a well-known symbol for the default export, but this
> simple desugaring migh
It occurs to me that this is valid under the current grammar:
import { default as foo } from "foo";
export { foo as default };
We've discussed using a well-known symbol for the default export, but this
simple desugaring might be another option:
import foo as "foo";
// => import {
Sorry - corrections to examples:
import foo from "foo";
// => import { default as foo } from "foo";
export default = expr;
// => let __genident__ = expr; export { __genident__ as default };
module Foo from "foo";
Foo.default();
Thanks,
{ Kevin }
>
> Rick, I think Yusuke was asking about this form:
> class F {
> f(x) x+1
> }
Yes, this is what I asked.
Brendan Eich wrote:
> Matthew Robb wrote:
>
>> At one point I was under the impression that the following would produce
>> an implicit return method:
>>
>> class x {
>>
Brendan Eich wrote:
Matthew Robb wrote:
At one point I was under the impression that the following would
produce an implicit return method:
class x {
method(x) x+x
}
We dropped it. Maybe Rick can find the meeting notes -- I'm short on
time due to travel today. The problem is you must ter
Matthew Robb wrote:
At one point I was under the impression that the following would
produce an implicit return method:
class x {
method(x) x+x
}
We dropped it. Maybe Rick can find the meeting notes -- I'm short on
time due to travel today. The problem is you must terminate with a ; or
e
At one point I was under the impression that the following would produce an
implicit return method:
class x {
method(x) x+x
}
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Robb wrote:
>
>> Does a concise body method still return by defa
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jason Orendorff
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>> MethodDefinition :
>> PropertyName ( FormalParameterList ) { FunctionBody }
>>
>> Still defines a "concise body", but doesn't specifically label it as such
>> and PropertyDefinition
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Robb wrote:
> Does a concise body method still return by default?
>
ArrowFunction offers implicit return in the unbraced form:
let two = () => 1 + 1;
two(); // 2
Whereas the braced form requires an explicit return, otherwise returning
the default undefin
Does a concise body method still return by default?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Yusuke SUZUKI wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I remember that ConcideBody for MethodDefinition was once introduced
>> into the draft, but after that it wa
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
> 2013/6/4 Tab Atkins Jr.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Mark S. Miller
>> wrote:
>> > I am making here only an argument that .then's result behavior should be
>> > flatMap-like rather than .map-like. As for which of these the .chain
>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> MethodDefinition :
> PropertyName ( FormalParameterList ) { FunctionBody }
>
> Still defines a "concise body", but doesn't specifically label it as such
> and PropertyDefinition still contains the MethodDefinition-part
>
> Hopefully this hel
Jeff Morrison wrote:
require() is a synchronous call in to our module system, and we don't
execute a given module until all of its require() dependencies have
been downloaded.
Hi Jeff, catching up (sorry if I missed it): do you do a
browserify-style analysis for require("...") calls and hoist
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Yusuke SUZUKI wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I remember that ConcideBody for MethodDefinition was once introduced
> into the draft, but after that it was reverted.
> And I have a question why it is dropped. Searching maling list, I've
> found 2 threads.
>
> http://esdiscu
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> We are arguing about enough other issues that -- since this seems to be
> controversial as well -- to avoid an avoidable argument, I will include all
> three lists as you do here. However, for the record, I think this is silly.
> There's noth
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Given this direction, I think the one operation that serves as both
> Promise.resolve and Promise.fulfill should be the previously suggested
> Promise.of.
I think you still want Promise.resolve because it makes sense with
Promise.reject and
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> I just realized that this thread has occurred so far only on the wrong
> lists. Please let's proceed from here only on es-discuss. This is a language
> issue, not a browser issue. Let's please stop splitting the discussion
> between two commu
2013/6/4 Tab Atkins Jr.
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > I am making here only an argument that .then's result behavior should be
> > flatMap-like rather than .map-like. As for which of these the .chain camp
> > prefers for .chain's result behavior, I am neutral. Bu
Hello all,
I remember that ConcideBody for MethodDefinition was once introduced
into the draft, but after that it was reverted.
And I have a question why it is dropped. Searching maling list, I've
found 2 threads.
http://esdiscuss.org/topic/concisefunctionbody
http://esdiscuss.org/notes/2012-05-2
25 matches
Mail list logo
