Try: switch a when b , c , d e()
And when do you ever want to leak local variables to an outer scope? Never. Not to mention that loop counters are no different than other `var`iables in JS.
The inconsistency doesn't stop there; `for` variables are specialcased: bar = -> alert "Holy crap cheese is awesome!" foo = -> for bar of bars console.log bar return ↓ var bar, foo; bar = function() { return…
> I suggest it's an error. So we'd have to give up: array .map (x) -> f x .reduce (a, b) -> g a, b
There's no outdented continued call in current CoffeeScript; an outdented line always makes OUTDENT. (Or are you suggesting to allow such code? I personally see no value in it.)
I believe you mean: foo bar; bash: something; thenBlitz. http://www.inf.ufsc.br/poo/smalltalk/ibm/tutorial/chap3.html...
# Fix things CS goofs. # Add things CS lacks.
Try: switch a when b , c , d e()
And when do you ever want to leak local variables to an outer scope? Never. Not to mention that loop counters are no different than other `var`iables in JS.
The inconsistency doesn't stop there; `for` variables are specialcased: bar = -> alert "Holy crap cheese is awesome!" foo = -> for bar of bars console.log bar return ↓ var bar, foo; bar = function() { return…
> I suggest it's an error. So we'd have to give up: array .map (x) -> f x .reduce (a, b) -> g a, b
There's no outdented continued call in current CoffeeScript; an outdented line always makes OUTDENT. (Or are you suggesting to allow such code? I personally see no value in it.)
I believe you mean: foo bar; bash: something; thenBlitz. http://www.inf.ufsc.br/poo/smalltalk/ibm/tutorial/chap3.html...
# Fix things CS goofs. # Add things CS lacks.