I'm still yet to read the entire proposal, but with a quick skim, it seems to me like this is essentially what Typescript or Flow offers you: i.e. an opt-in type system?
I'm wondering if you have any good reasons to want there to be a standardised static type annotation syntax within ECMAScript instead of a "Bring Your Own Type Checker" system. If you do have some thoughts on this, you might also want to include that as a preface on your Github's README.You have a "Rationale" bit that seems to ignore the existence of these existing systems. Waiting to hear more thoughts on this :) On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 at 11:56 Brandon Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > It's been a year and a half since my last post and I've made a number of > small changes and corrections over 2.5 years. The proposal is still on my > github at: > > > https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types > > I've talked to a lot of people about it, but I haven't gotten much > criticism or suggested improvements. I'm a bit in over my head in trying to > flesh out all the details or all the nuanced syntax changes that a > championed proposal would be expected to do. That said I've been making > more changes lately to try to find edge cases and potential problems. > > > I've been jotting down issues here: > https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types/issues I closed a number of > them recently as I made changes. > > If anyone has any comments on what I should expand, look into more, or > change I'm open to discussing them here or on github. > > One issue in particular is this: > https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-types/issues/15 It covers whether > I should introduce a new assignment operator to my proposal. Maybe there's > another way to look at it or a different solution. I need fresh eyes on the > whole proposal really to get a list of new issues to tackle this year. > > I'm also not against having one or multiple people champion it and working > on it without me. (I haven't been able to dedicate time to read the > ECMAScript spec and really understanding the grammar fully so having > someone qualified to take over would help the proposal a lot). > > > Thanks for reading the proposal for anyone that has the time. > _______________________________________________ > 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
