« Return to Thread: optional "function" keyword

Re: optional "function" keyword

by Brendan Eich-2 :: Rate this Message:

I know, that's why I wrote that a [no LineTerminator here] restricted
production would be required (which I just forgot to include in my
mini-grammar sent to Isaac, guh).

Dave assumed we wouldn't add such a restriction. But if we do, then
there's no backward incompatibility because right now you cannot run
(a,b,c) up against {foo(); bar = baz()} on the same line.

/be

Rick Waldron wrote:

> A few months ago, I made this same suggestion, here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/es-discuss@.../msg07021.html
>
> And David Herman very succintly explained here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/es-discuss@.../msg07031.html
>
> Rick
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@...
> <mailto:brendan@...>> wrote:
>
> 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 expression.
>
>
> 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 parameter list.
>
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@... <mailto:es-discuss@...>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@...
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

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

« Return to Thread: optional "function" keyword