Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Why do arrow functions require a parameter list and a body? That is, none of the following are allowed:
>
> - `=>  foo`
> - `bar =>`
> - `=>`
>
> Instead you need the more-verbose
>
> - `() =>  foo`
> - `bar =>  {}`
> - `() =>  {}`
>
> Any chance of relaxing this a bit?

I proposed arrow functions and championed them into ES6. As the strawman 
history shows, eliding () and {} were both supported at first:

http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax&rev=1332877190

Note the _opt suffixes in the productions.

Meeting notes at

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021872.html

don't cover the cuts, but es-discuss threads do:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-April/022178.html

It really was a gestalt negative reaction. The grammar issues can be 
dealt with. People just objected on the basis of (=>) or (=>42) being 
too cryptic, IIRC. In the interest of gaining consensus, I cut the 
controversial bits.

Now on to Oliver's followup, which may give more detail.

/be

I proposed arrow functions and championed them into ES6. As the strawman 
history shows, eliding `()` and `{}` were both supported at first:

http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:arrow_function_syntax&rev=1332877190

Note the _opt suffixes in the productions.

Meeting notes at

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-March/021872.html

don't cover the cuts, but es-discuss threads do:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-April/022178.html

It really was a gestalt negative reaction. The grammar issues can be dealt with. People just objected on the basis of `(=>)` or `(=>42)` being too cryptic, IIRC. In the interest of gaining consensus, I cut the controversial bits.

Now on to Oliver's followup, which may give more detail.