[mrighele]

Interesting, it seems that the javascript runtime is smart enough detect this pattern and actually create a named function (I tried Chrome and Node.js)

    const foo = () => {}
    console.log( foo.name );

actually outputs 'foo', and not the empty string that I was expecting.

   const test = () => ( () => {} );
   const foo = test();
   console.log( foo.name );

outputs the empty string.

Is this behavior required by the standard ?

[svieira]

Yes, in great detail. https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ordinary-and-exotic-object... is the specification, and for the TL;DR https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... is pretty good.

[Izkata]

You're probably remembering how it used to work. This is the example I remember from way back that we shouldn't use because (aside from being unnecessary and weird) this function wouldn't have a name in stack traces:

  var foo = function() {};

Except nowadays it too does have the name "foo".