Ok, thanks, that clarifies it. On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum wrote: > > I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify. > > I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I did not > intend to start a discussion about named parameters' merits vs passing an > object literal (I thing Axel had a blog about that a while ago). > > What I'm interested in is *where the **is **TC standing in this regard*. > > - Are there any proposals currently under work (TC's GitHub suggests no)? > > > not with TC39, AFAIK > > - Were there proposals in the past that were rejected or abandoned? > > probably (and informally) but you'd have to search the last 10 years of > es-discuss and TC39 meeting notes > > - Was there discussion about named parameters in the language before? > > > Yes, when object destructuring of function parameters was first being > discussed. The TC39 consensus was that the option object pattern had > already adequately filled that ecological niche so we focused on making > sure that parameter destructuring were useful for dealing with them. > > Allen > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
