Andreas Rossberg wrote:
(Refutable: a pattern that may fail to match, raising an error;
irrefutable: a pattern that is matched by anything, but potentially by
binding nullish values to pattern variables.)
(That is indeed the definition we all share -- thanks.)
The current draft tries to make all/most destructuring patterns
irrefutable. The above equivalence is the motivation (though not the
"definition" of irrefutable).
Sure (I didn't write "definition"). That motivation comes from JS as it
is today, without pattern matching.
I understand that motivation, but was trying to point out that it is
merely one under several (conflicting) potential equivalences to
consider. For example, in languages with pattern matching I usually have
let pat = exp; stats
~=
match (exp) { case pat: stats }
(Assuming a match without a default throws, otherwise add an explicit
error default.)
IMHO this equivalence would be much more important, because it is
necessary for giving a uniform meaning to patterns per se.
If only JS had pattern matching!
We may add pattern matching, but does that future possibility make the
equivalence you cite more important than the one JS programmers might
expect today?
We could try to have our cake and eat it, by extending the pattern
language with prefix-! or prefix-?. Which prefix depends on the choice
of default behavior, based on ranking of the two equivalences. Whatever
that ranking, does this make sense so far?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
