Sorry for lack of words.
What I am talking about is a new proposal to modify `JSON.parse()`.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
I would like to be called and interpreted like
`BigInt("465456456465465465465465464646")` when first parsing the numeric
string.
This means that all numerical values passed to the `reviver` function and
all numerical values contained in the post-analysis object are `BigInt`.
Is it better to be able to pass the option object as the second argument
like this?
```
let option = { number: BigInt, reviver: conversion_function }
JSON.parse( json_string, option )
```
All JSON numbers are interpreted as follows
```
option.number( number_string )
```
I'm sorry, I was misunderstanding and confused, and thank you to teach me.
I want you to tell me why dangerous to omit `catch`.
Is that because, people abuse the syntax ?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Mr. Wadas,
I think whether it can replace by one line helper function is not much
relationship, because `Optional Chaining`, `Throw expressions`, or many
proposals can replace so too.
In addition, there is `optional catch binding` proposal, and this idea is
less dangerous.
Rather, this idea looks
I have two thinkings about risk of this idea.
First, I think this syntax is almost same risk as try-catch syntax, because
try-catch syntax is often used for just swallowing errors and it will be
making hard to debug.
Rather, this might be better because the target of syntax is partial. This
is
I think this idea is useful in async function.
For exsample, we write codes as below, when we use fetch() in async
function.
```js
let res, text
try {
res = await fetch( url )
} catch ( err ) { console.log( 'network error' ) }
if ( ! res.ok ) console.log( 'server error' )
else text =
ractical
> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I understood it.
>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
&g
Oh, I understood it.
It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
My idia is as follows:
```
[1..5] //-> [1,2,3,4,5]
(1..5) //-> iterate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
[1..Infinity] // -> TypeError because n > 2**32-1
(1..Infinity) // -> valid iterator
```
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
How about this
```
for ( i of Array.range(1, 10) ) { ... }
// OR
for ( i of [1..10] ) { ... }
```
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
11 matches
Mail list logo
