Not a bad idea -- I agree that it really belongs here, but its value is much higher in something like TypeScript, where you can keep the typing signature but have a missing implementation.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 3:32 AM Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > I would suggest, if you have support in your editor, just making a > `???` snippet expand to `throw new Error("unimplemented")`. I've been > doing similar (mod the snippet) for a while, and it's worked pretty > well. > ----- > > 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 Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:16 AM, dante federici > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Simple example (ts): > > ```typescript > > interface SearchFunc { > > (source: string, subString: string): boolean; > > } > > > > // Later > > let mySearch: SearchFunc; > > mySearch = function(source: string, subString: string) { ??? } > > ``` > > > > Simple example (js): > > ```js > > class MyClass = { > > foo() { return "foo"; } > > bar() { return "bar"; } > > } > > class ExtendClass extends MyClass { > > foo(){ ??? } > > bar(){ return `extended bar`; } > > } > > > > // Elsewhere > > myRunner = (classInstance) => `${classInstance.foo()} :: > > ${classInstance.bar()}`; > > > > myRunner(myClassInstance); > > myRunner(extendedClassInstance); > > ``` > > > > Decorations would be good for classes, but don't work for regular > methods. > > > > I'm not sold we need new syntax for this -- I just find myself reaching > for > > the `???` symbol. Especially in a typed language or in any instance that > we > > have a class and extended paradigm, or when you have a prescribed > "object" > > shape. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
