Brendan Eich-3 wrote:
I noted the reaction here and in talks I've given, citing the straw poll I
took about arrow functions, lambdas, there-can-be-only-one. 8/6/unanimous
(some abstained). IOW, TC39 wants at most one
lambda-or-just-shorter-function syntax (lambda carries semantics). The
Recently, I've invested time looking at current
compiling-to-JavaScript developments. Although people have been doing
this for many years now, it seems CoffeeScript is making it clear that
being a target of compilation is at least part of JavaScript's future.
The pending additions in browsers of
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 18, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Yet CoffeeScript does not need lambdas with TCP control effects today. It
translates in a straightforward (mostly) transpiling way. Even its
expression-language mapping
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Drawing the line in the right place is important of course. I was
trying to contribute to the case that drawing the line with lambdas in
would be beneficial to some and perhaps a growing group in the future.
If you wrote might instead of
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
So what can be done to help move the block lambda proposal towards Harmony?
To me the biggest obstacle is the meta-point about OMG too different
regarding return, break, and continue having
5 matches
Mail list logo
