How about no. That is a very wasteful way to model immutable data
(which isn't used by most JS developers to begin with), and it's also
a very bad way to model the syntax. You also have a potential syntax
conflict (requires a substantial cover grammar to avoid) with stage-2
private fields:
```js
class C {
#foo = 1;
list() { return [#foo#] }
}
```
In general, we *should* be making it easier for decently good
libraries (e.g. Immutable.js, mori) to integrate with the language,
not provide nice-to-haves that only haphazardly replace them.
-----
Isiah Meadows
[email protected]
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
www.isiahmeadows.com
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Keith Cirkel
<[email protected]> wrote:
> As functional programming because more mainstream - developers are leaning
> more and more on immutability - with tools like immutable.js. However there
> exists perfectly good solutions inside of JS with Object.seal &
> Object.freeze.
>
> I propose making a short syntax to allow for creating of sealed/frozen
> objects that looks like this:
>
> ```js
> {| foo: 1 |} // same as Object.seal({ foo: 1 })
> {# foo: 1 #} // same as Object.freeze({ foo: 1 })
>
> [| 1, 2, 3 |] // same as Object.seal([ 1, 2, 3 ])
> [# 1, 2, 3 #] // same as Object.freeze([ 1, 2, 3 ])
>
> // Deep frozen objects becomes a case of using frozen notation all the way
> down:
> {# foo: {# bar: 1 #} #} // same as Object.freeze({ foo: Object.freeze({ bar:
> 1 }) })
> [# [# 1, 2 #], [# 3, 4 #] #] // same as Object.freeze([Object.freeze([1,2]),
> Object.freeze([3, 4]])
> ```
>
> This short syntax allows for a much more expressive way of writing/reading
> sealed & frozen objects. I look forward to a discussion about this.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
