Note that something similar was given serious consideration by TC39 for ES6 but
was ultimately being rejected:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:concise_object_literal_extensions
<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:concise_object_literal_extensions>
You can probably find relevant discussions in the es-discuss archive and TC39
notes.
Allen
> On Jul 8, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Raul-Sebastian Mihăilă <raul.miha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose the following syntax:
>
> ```js
> const obj = {
> x:| 3, // non-writable property with value 3
> y:] 4, // non-configurable property with value 4
> z:} 5 // non-writable non-configurable property with value 5
> };
> ```
>
> Perhaps class fields could also use this syntax. Maybe decorators can take
> care of this but should you really need to use a decorator for something so
> basic?
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
