On Jul 26, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> Why do arrow functions require a parameter list and a body? That is, none of the following are allowed:
> 
> - `=> foo`

I guess this could be lexically unambiguous, but i'm unconvinced that the "win" of losing two characters in the strictly less common no parameters is worth the syntactic confusion

> - `bar =>`
> - `=>`

I think an optional tail would be a huge coding hazard - a typo could result in bizarre behaviour, take:

blah(=>,5)

vs

blah(=>5)


> 
> Instead you need the more-verbose
> 
> - `() => foo`

Honestly I'm not sold on the {} free production, but i understand the arguments for it.  Randomly (and because i'm too lazy to check) how would
a => b => c

produce?  I mean aside from making the maintainers cry.


--Oliver

> - `bar => {}`
> - `() => {}`
> 
> Any chance of relaxing this a bit?
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

On Jul 26, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> Why do arrow functions require a parameter list and a body? That is, none of the following are allowed:
> 
> - `=> foo`

I guess this could be lexically unambiguous, but i'm unconvinced that the "win" of losing two characters in the strictly less common no parameters is worth the syntactic confusion

> - `bar =>`
> - `=>`

I think an optional tail would be a huge coding hazard - a typo could result in bizarre behaviour, take:

```js
blah(=>,5)
```

vs

```js
blah(=>5)
```

> 
> Instead you need the more-verbose
> 
> - `() => foo`

Honestly I'm not sold on the {} free production, but i understand the arguments for it.  Randomly (and because i'm too lazy to check) how would

```js
a => b => c
```

produce?  I mean aside from making the maintainers cry.