This is all unwanted "innovation". We have holes in arrays, and in
SpiderMonkey and Rhino we've had holes in destructuring array patterns
for years. No one got confused or went blind. We should stop nanny-ing
about holes.
Some of you don't like holes, but they're not going away in arrays. They
are useful in array patterns to avoid _ or junk bindings. That's enough
to keep them, rather than straining to invent more cumbersome ad-hoc
replacements.
/be
Herby Vojčík <mailto:[email protected]>
February 2, 2012 11:49 AM
If
{"5":x} = someArray;
and
{"0":a, "2":y} = someArray;
would be possible, there is probably little need for holes. In case of
[a,b,c,d,,f] = someArray;
one could always use (some conventional) anon-var, like _ (from Prolog):
[a,b,c,d,_,f] = someArray;
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
