Using `undefined` is readable, it's just not as short. But that's my point. Readability should normally trump "shortness" in case they conflict, in my mind, (while both are desirable) simply for the following reason: if something is accidentally misread, it can cause a bug when used or modified, which I think is worse than "having to type/read more". Of course, if a feature is both shorter and readable (e.g. ES6 classes, arrow functions, etc.) then I think it's an easier choice
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 09:11, Cyril Auburtin <[email protected]> wrote: > yes true, it's even more annoying with eslint, you have to configure it > with https://eslint.org/docs/rules/no-unused-vars#argsignorepattern for > example > > To be fair I considered this case mostly for `Array.from({length: n}, (,i) > => i)`, but it's easier to forget that comma. What's preferable is a whole > new syntax for ranges anyway (some people proposed > https://github.com/tc39/proposal-slice-notation/pull/32) > > So in the end, having to ignore arguments is probably a sign of a 'bad' > design, or at least other possible better workarounds > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 5:23 PM Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure I find the reduced readability argument compelling on this >> one. The alternatives suggested (throwaway variables or crowding meaningful >> parameters with `undefined`) don't get clean scores on that front either, >> IMO. >> >> Simply eliding a parameter seems like a nice example of terse/expressive >> syntax. /2-cents >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Cyril Auburtin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I proposed it a long time ago >>> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/ignoring-arguments >>> >>> but I agree with Tab Atkins nowadays, it would hurt readability >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:34 AM Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jeremy Martin >> 661.312.3853 >> @jmar777 <https://twitter.com/jmar777> / @j <https://stream.live/j> >> >>
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
