Kevin Smith wrote:
Interpreted this way, any additional irrefutable markers in a
subtree under a refutable identifier become redundant, correct?
Er, meant this:
Interpreted this way, any additional irrefutable markers in a subtree
under an _irrefutable_ identifier become redundant, correct?
For the proposal to use Nil for the expression semantics, yes.
You're right, this implies destructuring binding forms behave in a way
that I flagged as possibly not wanted:
let {p?: {q: r}} = o;
would bind r to undefined for any o that doesn't have a p or that does
but o.p doesn't have a q.
On second look this is not as bad as I thought. It would be bad if r
were not bound (so an outer r could become visible) depending on o's
dynamics. That seems right out!
/be
r = o?.p?.q { p?: { q?: r } } = o
Using Nil, the "q" in all cases is "present" (evaluating to Nil),
so the "?" in "q?" has no effect. Is that right?
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
