On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Robb <matthewwr...@gmail.com> wrote: > My argument is that you can keep everything the same as it is now but change > the syntax to not use curlies and avoid the confusing similarity to > destructuring. You could use `(a,b,c)` or `<a,b,c>` and it would all > continue working as it does but be less confusing.
And (just restating my position), I'm saying that using a new arbitrary punctuation here would be *more* confusing, since 99% of the time the behavior will be exactly as if it were destructuring (ie, the module isn't going to do any funny mutable binding tricks). If it's a "magic destructuring" at least make it *look* like a destructuring (ie, no crazy "as" keywords), so that developers don't have to learn where the magic hides unless it is necessary. --scott _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
