I tend to agree and one thing I like in good code is "glanceability" -
the ability to "glance" and see what's going on. If I have doStuff(bar,, foo,, far) vs doStuff(bar, foo,, far) they don't look too different, but really they are. I normally break params into separate lines so I wouldn't have this problem, but there's the risk overall. I like that a motivational factor for introducing a language feature is "reducing the likelihood of bugs", and in my mind this one seems to very slightly increase it On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 18:49, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:06 AM manuelbarzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > ``` > > fun('a', 'b',, 'd',, 'f') > > ``` > > While this does technically match up with arrays, I find the the array > behavior unreadable and unintuitive (especially with the exception for > the final comma), and I'd prefer that syntax quirk not spread to other > list-like syntax constructs. > > Passing `undefined` is simply and easy enough; if it's too long you > can shave off three characters by spelling it `void 0`. Or put a `var > _;` at the top of your script and use that. > > ~TJ > _______________________________________________ > 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
