On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One facility that was introduced in this draft copies the
> type tags of 'const' and 'var' attributed properties into
> the type of the object, for "ease of use". As a consequence,
> this test is true:
I don't understand how this could work for "var".
> { const x: "foo" } is { x: string }
>
> I am going to remove that facility again because it violates
> the "explicit is better than implicit" principle. IMO the
> programmer should state her intent:
>
> { const x: "foo" } : { x: string }
A possible counter-argument is that the type of "foo" is string rather
than *. We don't make the programmer write
"foo" :string
in order to get the right type.
> (It's easy to say that when the literals are simple then the
> types are obvious, but once they involve more complicated
> expressions I'm guessing the gains are illusory.)
That's not clear to me. The cases that come to mind compose well:
{ const x: { const y: "bar" } }
has type { x: { y: string }}
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
