On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Caitlin Potter <caitpotte...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Cute, but nobody is realistically going to do that.
>
Since `${}` is a static error, what do you realistically think people will
do? Especially if they meant `${''}`, how do you expect them to react to
the static error?
>
> Possible valid uses for the empty placeholder:
>
> - Contents of expression commented out, maybe debugging if it causes side
> effects which may be harmful
> - Expression is a placeholder, with contents soon to come (mentioned by OP)
>
> The DSL thing is a non-issue, because the empty expression didn't need to
> be included in the list of expressions, and if it is included, DSLs can be
> smart enough to deal with it, and should probably be implemented as a
> recursive descent parser on top of the interpolated text anyways
>
> Ease of use, ease of debugging, ease of editing. Users of JS don't make
> the distinction between a Statement and Expression or ExpressionStatement,
> and interpolated strings are very much about strings.
>
A surprising static error is better than a dynamic error that silently
violates programmer expectations. If I saw `${}` and did not know what it
means, I would sooner guess undefined than ''.
Code that matters is read more often than it is written. By making `${}` a
static error, we spare readers the hazard of trying to guess what this rare
edge case would do.
>
> On Oct 22, 2015, at 7:05 PM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote:
>
> It is an unnecessary special case. The empty string is a valid statement
> (aside from the semicolon) but not a valid expression. The syntax of what
> appears between the curlies is expression.
>
> Having it default to the empty string makes no sense. Why not 0, false,
> null, or undefined? Remember that template strings can be used to make
> arbitrary objects using any DSL that your tag knows how to parse. There's
> nothing about template strings that is about strings in either the
> substitution values or the result values.
>
> If you want the equivalent of `${''}`, just say `${''}`.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Caitlin Potter <caitpotte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea. I could be on board with that.
>>
>> > On Oct 22, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Mohsen Azimi <m...@azimi.me> wrote:
>> >
>> > Pardon my lack of use of proper terminology.
>> >
>> > This is kind of annoying working with large template strings. When I
>> leave an interpolation placeholder(what's the right name?) empty it blows
>> up all my code.
>> >
>> > Can it be forgiving like Ruby and CoffeScript and just replace it with
>> empty string?
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > es-discuss mailing list
>> > es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> --MarkM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
--
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
