Andreas Rossberg wrote:
We should talk more at this month's TC39 meeting, but I see a
sharp divide ahead:
1. Choose (A), possibly with modification, either rejecting useful
pattern matching decisively, or else making its pattern language
differ by making prefix-! implicit. But you rejected splitting
pattern meaning across destructuring and future pattern-matching,
in the last sentence cited above.
XOR
2. Choose (B) because future-proofing for pattern matching wants
prefix-?, and impose a compatibility break from what we and others
implemented, and what most JS users might expect based on JS's
carefree imputing of undefined.
Agreed.
Comments from es-discuss peanut gallery welcome.
I could go for 1/A, except for two facts. First, I believe there
is a non-trivial body of Firefox JS that depends on imputing
undefined. Second, and what is more important: we haven't
usability-tested 2/B at all.
Did you mean "could go for 2/B" there?
Evidently!
I rearranged and renumbered but missed this one. Clearly I meant 2/B.
I'm a bit unhappy about making such a change so long after implementing
1/A (without prefix-!). But never mind me -- what do others think?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
