On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Ok, you guys have holes in your head. No offense! > > Holey patterns are useful, as occasionally are holey arrays. If you disagree > on the latter, please acknowledge we are stuck with holey arrays for a long > time, and array destructuring patterns are supplemental syntax based on a > cover-grammar parse as array literals. This says holes win. If we have to > argue about this, I think we'll do a disservice to bigger-impact issues that > need resolution.
False alarm... You're right, they've always been in ES array literals and they are in the draft spec. for Array destructuring patterns. If there were being proposed as a new syntactic feature (as I believe that somebody did a while ago for elisions in argument lists) that would be a different matter and I'd have some objections. Allen > > /be >> Herby Vojčík <mailto:[email protected]> >> February 2, 2012 12:21 PM >> >> >> A bit off-topic... I don't like paretheses. Not only because I have to put >> them in both ends, but also because of uncomfortable feeling of "thing >> closed in parentheses". >> >> Maybe alternative convention to deal with expressions beginning with { could >> be used as well: >> >> 0, {5:x} = someArray; >> 0, {0:a, 2:y} = someArray; >> >> Herby >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> 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
