@thejameskyle heh. addiction is a powerful thing.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jamiebuilds
@thejameskyle the issue isn't functional, it's how { f: function f() { } } seems to mislead so many about concise+lexical1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jamiebuilds
@thejameskyle@RReverser my "inconsistency with spec" deliberately did not call it a "bug". it's misleading in some cases.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jamiebuilds
@thejameskyle it was in that exact tweet that i declined to call it a bug and instead called it an inconsistency. sorry for any offense.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @getify
@thejameskyle the "inconsistency" is that ES6 spec would NOT consider/treat { foo() {} } as { foo: function foo() {} }3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @getify
@thejameskyle even though the lexical name there isn't observable, it's still technically inconsistent with strict spec interpretation.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@getify @thejameskyle You're transpiling code dude, you obviously can't get the same level of engine semantics.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
he/him 