WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Yes, an identifier is required. It would not be possible to define
>> an unnamed function in this way.
> Why not express an anonymous function, though? Definition !=
> expression. As usual, an expression *statement* could not start with (
> and consist entirely of a function-keyword-free anonymous function
I should have stopped at "could not start with". Doesn't matter how it
might end, an expression-statement can't start with 'function' now and,
under the proposal, could not start with the ( beginning a formal