Le mar. 10 juill. 2018 09 h 14, T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Ben Wiley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here's a spec question: must the keys specified be numbers? The > application > > is questionable but I say anything could be allowed. E.g. > > ... > > So array rest spread would provide totally parallel functionality to > object > > rest spread with the key difference that result objects are arrays > instead > > of objects. > > I'd call it a minor point. But off-the-cuff: > > There's always a hopefully-creative tension between A) not > unnecessarily limiting things, and B) YAGNI and/or not handing people > footguns. > > In the "don't unnecessarily limit" column: > > * The ship has already sailed in terms of people confusing arrays and > objects in JavaScript. > * Not limiting to array index property names should mean the same > parsing structures and code can be used. > * I don't like unnecessary runtime checks, and the check that the > property name is an array index would have to be at runtime, not > parse-time, because of computed property names. > * Standard array indexes are officially strings anyway (though we > write them as numbers and they get optimized that way most of the > time). > * `[length: 10]` has a certain seductive quality about it. > > In the YAGNI and/or footgun column: > > * People already get objects and arrays confused enough! At least > right now, if they write `[foo: "bar"]`, they get a syntax error > (though of course `{0: "bar"}` is perfectly valid). Don't hand them > yet another footgun. > * As you say, application is questionable. > > -- T.J. Crowder >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
