That is an excellent question; see
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/1313 . I would lean towards using
SpeciesConstructor because it is consistent with the language as currently
defined, and we have not gotten consensus to decide on a different design.
It's pretty unfortunate because it
My sense is that any time you want to enable subclassing, you'd use
SpeciesConstructor - are there specific cases where you're seeing it not be
used?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:06 PM Michał Wadas wrote:
> Hi.
>
> This is question directed more to TC39 members. I'm updating Set methods
>
Hi.
This is question directed more to TC39 members. I'm updating Set methods
proposal right now and I don't understand when SpeciesConstructor should be
used and when I should just hardcode %Set%.
Michał Wadas
___
es-discuss mailing list
I think this is the right question. I agree that String.cook or whatever it
is called with typically be called explicitly rather than used
syntactically as a tag. However, putting the optional mapping function
aside for a moment, if the job it is doing is equivalent to that done by a
tag function,
> On Dec 13, 2018, at 10:37 AM, T.J. Crowder
> wrote:
>
> Fair enough, but the primary use of this function is *not* using it as a tag
> function, but rather as a normal function. It doesn't make sense to use it as
> a tag function, the result is the same as an untagged template. The only
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:37 PM T.J. Crowder
wrote:
>
> But called normally, it's a useful helper, for instance in
> Isiah's `escape`...
Going through the process of the example for my message just now made me
think more about this function. Suppose it:
1. Accepted an array of substitutions
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 5:56 PM Mark Miller
wrote:
>
> I like String.cooked best. While I agree that method names should
> generally be verbs, I suggest this rule should *not* be used for
> template literal tag names.
Fair enough, but the primary use of this function is *not* using it as a
tag
I like String.cooked best. While I agree that method names should generally
be verbs, I suggest this rule should *not* be used for template literal tag
names. Rather, the tag name should generally be descriptive, naming the
language being parsed or the way it is interpreted or what the value of
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:03 PM kai zhu
wrote:
> why not copy python's list-zip static-function
The result isn't a string, it's an array you'd then have to join with
`.join("")`. Not that `zip` isn't a useful function *too*... (At least,
presumably it is, it shows up in libs a lot. I don't
why not copy python's list-zip static-function (
https://www.programiz.com/python-programming/methods/built-in/zip)?
i'm also against the spread-operator signature.
```javascript
// python-inspired list-zip static-function
// List.zip(list1, list2)
str = List.zip(
templateList,
argList
FWIW, I've used same logic for something like a no-op for i18n`strings` [1]
so, considering it has easily use cases with mapped interpolations too, I
think it's more than natural to have that in core.
It's also backward compatible/polyfillable so this is kinda a no-brainer,
name a part, of
In general, I think method names should be verbs in the imperative
tense (okay, *mood* if you like linguistic distinctions), which would
argue for `cook` rather than `cooked`. (`String.raw` is an unfortunate
exception to this rule, which has largely been used throughout the
standard library.
I like `String.cooked`, especially considering `String.raw` already
basically does this, just using `template.raw` instead of `template`.
-
Isiah Meadows
cont...@isiahmeadows.com
www.isiahmeadows.com
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:23 AM Claude Pache wrote:
>
> Random suggestions:
>
> *
To me, `String.tag` seems more descriptive of the syntactic location
(the template *tag*) than the semantics it carries.
-
Isiah Meadows
cont...@isiahmeadows.com
www.isiahmeadows.com
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 2:53 AM Andrea Giammarchi
wrote:
>
> I agree with Mark, and I wonder why
Random suggestions:
* `String.cooked`, which pairs well with already existing `String.raw`
* `String.vanilla`
* `String.plain`
* `null`, i.e., using a null (or undefined) value as tag before a template
literal is equivalent to using no tag. (Con: not polyfillable)
—Claude
15 matches
Mail list logo
