Mark S. Miller wrote:
> I echo this. E is a dynamic language with many similarities with JS,
> including a similarly C-like syntax. In E I use
> everything-is-a-pattern-or-expression all the time. When I first moved
> to JS I missed it. Now that I am used to the JS
> statements-are-not-expressions restrictions, I no longer do, with one
> exception:
>
> When simply generating simple JS code from something else, this
> restriction is a perpetual but minor annoyance. By itself, I would agree
> that this annoyance is not important enough to add a new feature.
> However, if rather than "adding a feature", we can explain the change as
> "removing a restriction", then JS would get both simpler and more
> powerful at the same time. Ideally, the test would be whether, when
> explaining the less restrictive JS to a new programmer not familiar with
> statement languages, this change results in one less thing to explain
> rather than one more.

I like the idea those it seems a bit dense and strange on the first 
look. One breaking change is, though, that before the change, semicolon 
inside parentheses is an error, which often catches the missing 
parenthesis; after the change it is not (and manifests itself only at 
the end of the file; or even two errors can cancel each other and make 
conforming JS but with different semantics).

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com
> <mailto:rossberg at google.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 16 July 2015 at 15:21, Bob Myers <rtm at gol.com
>     <mailto:rtm at gol.com>> wrote:
>
>         With all "do" respect, none of this syntax tinkering makes any
>         sense to me.
>
>         I've been programming JS for 15 years and never noticed I needed
>         a try block that returns a value.
>
>         Long ago I programmed in a language called AED that had valued
>         blockl, which I was quite fond of, but never felt the need for
>         that in JS for whatever reason.
>
>
>     I've been programming in C++ for 25 years, and didn't have much need
>     for a try expression or nested binding either.
>
>     I've also been programming in functional languages for 20 years, and
>     need them on a regular basis.
>
>     It all depends on how high-level your programming style is. Also,
>     Sapir Whorf applies as usual.
>
>     /Andreas
>
>
>
> --
>      Cheers,
>      --MarkM
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

I like the idea though it seems a bit dense and strange on the first 
look. One breaking change is, though, that before the change, semicolon 
inside parentheses is an error, which often catches the missing 
parenthesis; after the change it is not (and manifests itself only at 
the end of the file; or even two errors can cancel each other and make 
conforming JS but with different semantics).

I like the idea those it seems a bit dense and strange on the first 
look. One breaking change is, though, that before the change, semicolon 
inside parentheses is an error, which often catches the missing 
parenthesis; after the change it is not (and manifests itself only at 
the end of the file; or even two errors can cancel each other and make 
conforming JS but with different semantics).