On 10 August 2013 22:15, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Pattern matching is more precise and flexible, and that's why we considered > changing destructuring (which uses the pattern subgrammar) to refutable from > irrefutable. Even now with destructuring irrefutable, patterns in catch > clauses, match statements/expressions, or other future forms would want the > same subgrammar, as much as possible -- but with refutability.
I'm confused now. Was there an actual decision to go back to irrefutable matching? I don't see that in the meeting notes (just an argument that it would be future hostile, which I strongly agree with). /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
