[nadinengland]

I love that this is part of the syntax.

I typically use closures to do this in other languages, but the syntax is always so cumbersome. You get the "dog balls" that Douglas Crockford always called them:

``` const config = (() => { const raw_data = ...

  ...

  return compiled;

})()'

const result = config.whatever;

// carry on

return result; ```

Really wish block were expressions in more languages.

[dwattttt]

By the by, code blocks on here are denoted by two leading spaces on each line

  like
  this

[nadinengland]

ah, much appreciated!

[notpushkin]

Interesting that you can use blocks in JS:

  {
    const x = 5;
    x + 5
  }
  // => 10
  x
  // => undefined

But I don’t see a way to get the result out of it. As soon as you try to use it in an expression, it will treat it as an object and fail to parse.

[charleszw]

Yes, I constantly use this pattern in C++/JavaScript, although I haven't tested how performant it is in the former (what does the compiler even do with such an expression?)

[paavohtl]

At least in simple cases the compiler will just inline the closure, as if it never existed. There shouldn't be any measurable overhead.

[pwdisswordfishy]

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-do-expressions

(Not to be confused with do notation)