On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> I am in favor of all these including "destructuring binding forms".
> But I don't know what "destructuring assignment" is.
Same thing without the binding keyword (let, var, const):
js> function foo() { return [1,2,3] }
js> let [a,b,c] = foo()
js> print(a,b,c)
1 2 3
function print() {
[native code]
}
js> [d,e,f] = foo()
1,2,3
The destructuring pattern here is an array, but objects work too:
js> let {length: len} = foo()
js> len
3
The assignment version of the above requires parentheses, to avoid
the { being taken for start of block statement:
js> ({length:len} = foo())
1,2,3
You could parenthesize just the left-hand side, of course.
There's a shorthand, familiar to SML users, for the common case where
you want the property name and the binding name to be the same:
js> function bar() { return {p:42, q:"hi"} }
js> let {p, q} = bar()
js> p
42
js> q
hi
The destructuring patterns work in formal parameter position and
catch clauses too. They nest too, so you can extract deep property
values and bind them to variable names.
Our experience in JS1.7 and 1.8 is that destructuring is extremely
pleasant and popular, with no nasty surprises (not even the
parenthesization requirement for object patterns in destructuring
assignment).
/be
>
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
