The proposed syntax for destructuring objects at <
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:destructuring> is:
Pattern ::= "{" (Field ("," Field)* ","?)? "}"
(array destructuring elided)
Element ::= Pattern | LValue
Field ::= Identifier (":" Element)?
LValue ::= <any lvalue expression allowed in a normal assignment expression>
This misses the opportunity for some parallelism with object literals. For
example, I can construct {' 0blah': x} with an object literal, but I can't
access the ' 0blah' with object destructuring.
Maybe Field ::= Identifier (":" Element)? could be changed to:
Field ::= PropertyName (":" Element)?
(using ECMA-262's PropertyName) to permit {' 0blah': x} = ...
This also allows seeming nonsense like {' 0blah'}, but I'm not sure that is
so bad since bindings in *objects* can have names that aren't identifiers,
so why not in scopes in general, too? Although destructuring could no longer
be implemented via desugaring because there's no way to make a binding with
an arbitrary name in the current scope.
So to preserve desugarability you could spell out the alternatives of
PropertyName in Field, to require elements with strings and numbers:
Field ::= Identifier (":" Element)?
| StringLiteral ":" Element
| NumericLiteral ":" Element
Dominic
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
