Thanks Brendan,
Refutable patterns not being near consensus sounds like getting this done
could be a lot of work both implementing it and figuring out a proposal
people agree on.
Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but the related bit is:
```
GuardedPattern(refutable) ::= Pattern(refutable) "if" AssignmentExpression
```
Where all I really need to solve this problem is:
```
"catch" "(" IdentifierName "if" AssignmentExpression ")"
```
Adding a Pattern to a catch, while it sounds fancy (I'm all up for
patterns!) is something that can be done either in addition to, or on top
of something like `"if" AssignmentExpression` bit - it's not a part of the
current proposal either.
I really appreciate your time, effort and knowledge on this. You've been
nothing but nice, and a great help for me when discussing issues here.
Given how everyone I talked to here and in forums like the idea of stronger
catch clauses and assuming you're already up for better catch clauses - who
do I need to convince that this is a real use case?
Can I take a look at the `catch (e if) {` proposal? Is it available online?
What were the objections to it?
Thanks,
Benjamin
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 01:55, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum wrote:
> >>
> >> You tell me I don't need to sell you this - who do I need to sell this
> to?
> >> What people do I convince in order to have better catch clauses that
> solve
> >> my problem in the spec?
> >
> > I think we need a champion for the pattern matching strawman. Dave was
> > championing but may need a tag-team partner. Cc'ing him.
>
> I can do that. I wanted to take it up anyway.
>
> /Andreas
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
