On 4 July 2012 17:01, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
Well, note my careful use of the conjunctive. :) That basically was the question I initially asked. My viewpoint is: If there is some reasonable chance that we might add pattern matching at some point in the future, then yes, I think we should not be future hostile, and bear that equivalence in mind as important. > 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? Sure, I'm all for that. As long as they -- and the rest of the pattern language -- have the same meaning in all contexts. /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
