This isn't unrelated. If we do get patterns into Harmony they may
subsume some of the postfix-?? (which does not work syntactically, IMHO)
or prefix-? ideas. Or at least prefix-? may show up in the pattern
language (dherman and I have discussed it).
Syntax design requries global oversight, there are cross-cutting
concerns and different complexity budgets to bean-count (but never too
locally or blindly).
/be
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 15 June 2012 08:09, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 15 June 2012 01:22, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> A wonder if this wart is hairy enough, that we wouldn't be
justified in some
> explicit backwards compatibility hackery in the spec. to remove it.
>
> For example, we could allow it to appear in parameter lists and
provide a
> dynamic check to ensure that nothing (other than a real
undefined) is
> passed. Similarly we could explicitly allow:
> var undefined;
Actually, for very much the same effect, you could simply treat
'undefined' as a (refutable) _pattern_ that is only matched by the
undefined value. No need to make special rules for var or parameters
then.
Folks, could we move the unrelated discussion to its own thread? This
thread's original subject is rather getting lost here.
-- T.J.
_______________________________________________
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
