# Shorthand For Inline Functions

**URL:** <https://es.discourse.group/t/shorthand-for-inline-functions/926>\
**Category:** 💡 Ideas\
**Created:** [August 15, 2021, 10:01am UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/shorthand-for-inline-functions/926 "2021-08-15T10:01:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![theScottyJam](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/es.discourse.group/thescottyjam/32/616_2.png) [@theScottyJam](https://es.discourse.group/u/theScottyJam)\
**Post date:** [August 16, 2021, 8:43pm UTC](https://es.discourse.group/t/shorthand-for-inline-functions/926/14 "2021-08-16T20:43:15Z")

</div>

> [@lightmare](#):
>
> Why not allow `ConciseBody` for all functions?

From what I understand, the primary reason for introducing arrow functions into the language was to provide a syntactic shorthand for normal functions. They decided later to also add auto-this-binding capabilities to arrow functions, so that they weren't just a shorthand. Now, we're attempting to make a shorthand for normal functions again - which means arrow functions must not be doing their job at being a good shorthand for normal functions.

That said, I do see the appeal for the proposed shorthand.

---

_[View the full topic](https://es.discourse.group/t/shorthand-for-inline-functions/926)._