On Nov 7, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> How about:
>
> let {length} = "abc";
or
let [first,second] = "abc";
>
> I think the conversion keeps the illusion alive that every value in JS is an
> object.
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 18:21 , Andreas Rossberg wrote:
>
>> On 7 November 2011 17:34, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> It is just another way to
>>>> silently inject an `undefined' that is tedious to track down. We
>>>> already have too many of those...
>>>
>>> It is how the language currently behaves in all situations where an object
>>> is needed but a primitive values is provided.
>>> We want consistency in language design, not a hodgepodge of special cases
>>> and different rules.
>>
>> Hm, I don't quite buy that. There are plenty of places in ES today
>> where we don't convert but throw, e.g. "in", "instanceof", various
>> methods of Object, etc. Destructuring arguably is closely related to
>> operators like "in". Implicit conversion would violate the principle
>> of least surprise for either, IMHO.
>>
>> I agree that consistency is a nice goal, but it seems like that train
>> is long gone for ES. Also, if consistency implies proliferating an
>> existing design mistake then I'm not sure it should have the highest
>> priority.
>>
>>
>>>> When would this ever be useful behaviour instead of just obfuscating bugs?
>>>
>>> let {toFixed, toExponential} = 42;
>>
>> OK, I guess "useful" is a flexible term. Would you recommend using
>> that style as a feature?
>>
>> /Andreas
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> [email protected]
>
> home: rauschma.de
> twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
> blog: 2ality.com
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
