On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alexander Jones wrote:
> const symbol mySym;
> const mySym = Symbol("mySym");
>
Nice, I like that one.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
1) Import is designed for static analysis at compiled time, but that
doesn't limit you from implementing a dynamic module loader, as kdex
pointed out. You can, for example, still use AMD-style define libraries
within ES6 Modules if you wish (though I leave that to you to figure out if
you really w
I'm not sure about going down the path of having sigils, i.e. the @ -
there's not really any reason I can see for this IMO. I do agree with
others that having to repeat yourself when defining a symbol is quite lame.
Perhaps if we opened up my earlier proposal for shorthand let- and and
const-funct
> Le 8 janv. 2016 à 16:28, Matthew Robb a écrit :
>
> I'd still love to have symbol syntax using the @ident form or something. (I'm
> aware that it would likely conflict with the current decorators proposal).
>
>
What would be a concrete syntax? The following one seems nice:
```js
{
sym
I'd still love to have symbol syntax using the @ident form or something.
(I'm aware that it would likely conflict with the current decorators
proposal).
On Jan 6, 2016 8:13 PM, "Mark S. Miller" wrote:
> Yup. Consider
>
> const foo = x();
>
> where x happens to have the original value of Symbol.
>
5 matches
Mail list logo
