On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Claude Pache <claude.pache at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I guess you want sugar for the following valid ES6 code?


​You're right, I must be crazy for wanting my code to be readable and
slightly resemble the syntax people have been using as defacto-standard for
years now. I, and I am sure the greater web dev community, much prefer new
language features to be completely foreign and difficult to make sense of
in relation to what's already being done.

I don't mean to be snarky about it (and I apologize, I mean no offense) but
sheesh... Aren't things like async-functions sugar for existing valid es6
code? Maybe it would be better if what gets passed to a template
tag-function is not, by default, the values from the local-bindings.
Perhaps there is a way to make template tags much more useful by allowing
the function to determine more about the semantics of the string.

Sometimes this list really does make me think I am crazy or something.

- Matthew Robb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141216/37be9c81/attachment.html>

​You're right, I must be crazy for wanting my code to be readable and
slightly resemble the syntax people have been using as defacto-standard for
years now. I, and I am sure the greater web dev community, much prefer new
language features to be completely foreign and difficult to make sense of
in relation to what's already being done.

I don't mean to be snarky about it (and I apologize, I mean no offense) but
sheesh... Aren't things like async-functions sugar for existing valid es6
code? Maybe it would be better if what gets passed to a template
tag-function is not, by default, the values from the local-bindings.
Perhaps there is a way to make template tags much more useful by allowing
the function to determine more about the semantics of the string.

Sometimes this list really does make me think I am crazy or something.