How about for now, let's hold off on anything concrete until after the pattern matching proposal gets to a point we can model the syntax and semantics after that. There's quite a bit of overlap in terms of behavior, too, which is more reason to consider this together with it.
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching (I don't believe there's an issue over there for potential future expansion to extensible destructuring assignment, but there should be.) On Sun, Jul 30, 2017, 11:34 Darien Valentine <[email protected]> wrote: > While static analysis is one advantage, there are additional reasons for > this to be a syntactic proposal. A helper method like `Map.fromObject` > could indeed be a useful addition to the language (though it is simple > enough to do already: `new Map(Object.entries(obj))`) — however that does > not work for maps whose keys are not also valid property keys. > > In general I’m in the less-new-syntax camp, but I find this idea > intriguing. My initial impression is that it’s fairly convincing, mainly > because my (purely anecdotal) experience is that it is an attempt to solve > a real problem — many devs seem to be reluctant to use `Map` and `Set`, > despite knowing they exist and are sometimes more appropriate models, and I > think it is in part due to their "second class" nature; in ES folks are > accustomed to "seeing" data structures. Similarly there is reluctance to > work with subclasses of data structures, which are put on equal-footing by > this proposal. > > The `#` is indeed ugly, but the particular symbol I imagine is highly > bikesheddable and consideration of it could probably be deferred till it’s > determined whether the core ideas of the proposal represent a worthwhile > addition. > _______________________________________________ > 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
