Re: optional "function" keyword

This approach requires a restriction: [no LineTerminator here] between
the ) and the {:

js> function f(a,b,c){return a*b+c}
js> var x=2,y=3,z=4,w
js> f(x,y,z) {
typein:3: SyntaxError: missing ; before statement:
typein:3: f(x,y,z) {
typein:3: .........^
js> eval("w=f(x,y,z)\n{print(w)}")
10

(That last "10" came from print(w) of course; the completion value of
the eval was undefined.)

Leaving out the f in the "definition" doesn't help, since (a,b,c) is a
comma expression. The requirement is no LineTerminator between the ) and
the {.

We went around a nearby block recently, in considering {(a,b)...} for
block lambdas. Everyone I remember initially favoring this syntax came
around to oppose it because the opportunity for confusion due to
parenthesized expression statements already mixing with curly-braced
block statements was too great.

Perhaps this case is different enough. But is it? Modified Prototype 1.6:

   inGroupsOf(number, fillWith) {
     fillWith = Object.isUndefined(fillWith) ? null : fillWith;
     return this.eachSlice(number, (slice) {
       while(slice.length < number) slice.push(fillWith);
       return slice;
     });
   },

   inject(memo, iterator, context) {
     iterator = iterator.bind(context);
     this.each((value, index) {
       memo = iterator(memo, value, index);
     });
     return memo;
   },

   invoke(method) {
     var args = $A(arguments).slice(1);
     return this.map((value) {
       return value[method].apply(value, args);
     });
   },

I've obviously also used method definition shorthand by changing any ":
function (" occurrences in the original prototype code to just "(".

Without a leading keyword, it's harder to find the functions. Not
impossible, not saying this is a deal breaker. But it is harder.

/be

Isaac Schlueter wrote: _______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@...
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss