I think the example actually reveals a deeper issue with the motivation: the desire to destructure maps like here is rooted in a category error. Destructuring is designed to apply to objects from the program domain, while maps are typically meant to encode data from the problem domain.
Or, in other words: destructuring is only useful when you know the keys at programming time (i.e., statically). But if that is the case, there is rarely a good reason to use a map. /Andreas On 21 July 2015 at 18:12, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, the spec says they are ordered, so I'm not sure where you're > getting that from. > > > *From:* Bergi <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Jul 21, 2015 8:53 AM > *To:* Domenic Denicola; es-discuss > *Subject:* Re: Extensible destructuring proposal > > Domenic Denicola schrieb: > > For maps you can just do > > > > ```js > > const [[k1, v1], [k2, v2], ...rest] = map.entries(); > > ``` > > The problem with this is that you would need to know the order of the > keys in the map. Your code does only extract the "first" and "second" > key-value pairs, allowing us to get the key values of them, but this > syntax does not allow us to extract the value for a given key from > somewhere in the map. > Predictability is all fine, but I still consider maps to be inherently > unordered. > > Bergi > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
