I know it's the same, for this reason I said it was "shimmable"
New syntax would be fine as long as minifiers won't break everything so ...
as long as minifiers are compatible, but this is an extra story I guess,
also it's not fundamental it's just nicer addiction since many libs are
using single object as function argument to obtain similar behavior
fn({a: 1, b: 2})
and back to the "too many objects created due lack of defaults/named
arguments" trap ...
Never mind, this is not for this thread.
Best Regards,
Andrea Giammarchi
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The point is that you don't *have* to pass a fresh object literal to each
>> constructor call.
>>
>> /be
>>
>>
> I know Brendan, my point is that I can predict devs will do every time ....
> we'll see
>
> Thanks for other reply, I thought named arguments where proposed tho ...
> any chance we can discuss this somehow ? ( not here )
>
>
> Can't use =, that is just the assignment operator, so
>
> foo(a = 1, b = 2)
>
> is the same as
>
> (a = 1, b = 2, foo(a, b))
>
> We'd need some new operator or punctuator, e.g.
>
> foo(a: 1, b: 2)
>
> or
>
> foo(a => 1, b => 2) // clashes with arrow function syntax
>
> Anyway, this only helps for the "top ply" of the object/array tree
> containing values to store as binary data. You'd still have object and array
> literals starting one ply down.
>
> /be
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
