Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-09-10 Thread Behrang Saeedzadeh 
It depends I guess. Should be a configuration option.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:37 AM Waldemar Horwat 
wrote:

> This would have interesting consequences if you run your code via a
> minifier.  Should the minifier return a string with the old name or the new
> name?
>
>  Waldemar
>
-- 
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-09-09 Thread Waldemar Horwat 

This would have interesting consequences if you run your code via a minifier.  
Should the minifier return a string with the old name or the new name?

Waldemar
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

RE: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-09 Thread Ron Buckton 
While its true most IDE's can search for references in strings, `nameof` takes 
some of the guesswork out of determining whether a substring that matches a 
symbol refers to the symbol or is merely part of the sentence.

That said, `nameof` is primarily a convenience for an IDE.

Ron

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Isiah Meadowsmailto:isiahmead...@gmail.com
Sent: ‎8/‎8/‎2015 8:57 PM
To: Ron Bucktonmailto:ron.buck...@microsoft.com; Behrang 
Saeedzadehmailto:behran...@gmail.com; EcmaScript Discuss Mailing 
Listmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for 
JavaScript.


To be honest, most larger IDEs also search for references in strings, and even 
if it doesn't, any decent editor can do a regex replace of `identifierName` 
without problem. I don't see much of a problem here. Also, do you know of any 
other language that has this at the syntax level (not macro)?

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 23:12 Ron Buckton 
ron.buck...@microsoft.commailto:ron.buck...@microsoft.com wrote:
One of the main purposes of the `nameof` operator is to provide the string 
value of a symbol, so that if you perform a Rename refactoring of that symbol 
that the change is also reflected. This is primarily for cases where you 
perform precondition assertions tied to an argument:

```
  ...
  static void Method(string x) {
if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(x));
...
  }
```

Now, if I later rename `x`, I don't need to also find any string literals of 
x and manually update them.

There are other uses of `nameof`, but they all boil down to roughly the same 
thing.

Ron

From: Isiah Meadowsmailto:isiahmead...@gmail.com
Sent: ‎8/‎8/‎2015 7:23 PM
To: Behrang Saeedzadehmailto:behran...@gmail.com; EcmaScript Discuss Mailing 
Listmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for 
JavaScript.


Call me crazy, but I don't see anything that couldn't be done more concisely 
with a string literal. Is it supposed to be able to do this?

```js
function foo(x) {
  return nameof(x);
}

foo(bar); // bar;
```

In that case, the engine would have to keep track of usages as well, in a 
similar sense as `arguments.callee`, and if it were a function, it would make 
optimization quite difficult, as engines don't have the capacity to statically 
analyze that such a function is used.

If it is like `typeof`, we now have a breaking change - a keyword that was a 
valid Identifier before.

```js
// Error?
function nameof(value) {
  return 
value.namehttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fvalue.namedata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=pwV45avF9RX6COETpoLIY4EF%2bmCVmk6kEEmLc2JXSCY%3d;
}

var bar = {name: 2};
nameof(bar); // bar or 2?
```

I don't think this is going to work out in practice, not in ECMAScript proper. 
You might appreciate Sweet.js, though.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 21:27 Behrang Saeedzadeh 
behran...@gmail.commailto:behran...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to mention that nameof works with local variables too:

function foo() {
 var aNum = 1;
 console.log(nameof(aNmum), aNum);
}


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM Behrang Saeedzadeh 
behran...@gmail.commailto:behran...@gmail.com wrote:

So basically we could use it like this:


function aFunc(aParam) {
throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
}



and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some hacky 
code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.

--
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
--
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.orgmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discusshttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmail.mozilla.org%2flistinfo%2fes-discussdata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=7DHMx5gTd2OexSlKscSrKlMIxABMUkOKRC%2fuCbc6pWk%3d
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-08 Thread Behrang Saeedzadeh 
Forgot to mention that nameof works with local variables too:

function foo() {
 var aNum = 1;
 console.log(nameof(aNmum), aNum);
}


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com
wrote:

 So basically we could use it like this:


 function aFunc(aParam) {
 throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
 }


 and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


 This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some
 hacky code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.
 --
 Best regards,
 Behrang Saeedzadeh

-- 
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-08 Thread Isiah Meadows 
Call me crazy, but I don't see anything that couldn't be done more
concisely with a string literal. Is it supposed to be able to do this?

```js
function foo(x) {
  return nameof(x);
}

foo(bar); // bar;
```

In that case, the engine would have to keep track of usages as well, in a
similar sense as `arguments.callee`, and if it were a function, it would
make optimization quite difficult, as engines don't have the capacity to
statically analyze that such a function is used.

If it is like `typeof`, we now have a breaking change - a keyword that was
a valid Identifier before.

```js
// Error?
function nameof(value) {
  return value.name;
}

var bar = {name: 2};
nameof(bar); // bar or 2?
```

I don't think this is going to work out in practice, not in ECMAScript
proper. You might appreciate Sweet.js, though.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 21:27 Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com wrote:

 Forgot to mention that nameof works with local variables too:

 function foo() {
  var aNum = 1;
  console.log(nameof(aNmum), aNum);
 }


 On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 So basically we could use it like this:


 function aFunc(aParam) {
 throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
 }


 and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


 This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some
 hacky code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.
 --
 Best regards,
 Behrang Saeedzadeh

 --
 Best regards,
 Behrang Saeedzadeh
 ___
 es-discuss mailing list
 es-discuss@mozilla.org
 https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

RE: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-08 Thread Ron Buckton 
One of the main purposes of the `nameof` operator is to provide the string 
value of a symbol, so that if you perform a Rename refactoring of that symbol 
that the change is also reflected. This is primarily for cases where you 
perform precondition assertions tied to an argument:

```
  ...
  static void Method(string x) {
if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(x));
...
  }
```

Now, if I later rename `x`, I don't need to also find any string literals of 
x and manually update them.

There are other uses of `nameof`, but they all boil down to roughly the same 
thing.

Ron

From: Isiah Meadowsmailto:isiahmead...@gmail.com
Sent: ‎8/‎8/‎2015 7:23 PM
To: Behrang Saeedzadehmailto:behran...@gmail.com; EcmaScript Discuss Mailing 
Listmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for 
JavaScript.


Call me crazy, but I don't see anything that couldn't be done more concisely 
with a string literal. Is it supposed to be able to do this?

```js
function foo(x) {
  return nameof(x);
}

foo(bar); // bar;
```

In that case, the engine would have to keep track of usages as well, in a 
similar sense as `arguments.callee`, and if it were a function, it would make 
optimization quite difficult, as engines don't have the capacity to statically 
analyze that such a function is used.

If it is like `typeof`, we now have a breaking change - a keyword that was a 
valid Identifier before.

```js
// Error?
function nameof(value) {
  return 
value.namehttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fvalue.namedata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=pwV45avF9RX6COETpoLIY4EF%2bmCVmk6kEEmLc2JXSCY%3d;
}

var bar = {name: 2};
nameof(bar); // bar or 2?
```

I don't think this is going to work out in practice, not in ECMAScript proper. 
You might appreciate Sweet.js, though.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 21:27 Behrang Saeedzadeh 
behran...@gmail.commailto:behran...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgot to mention that nameof works with local variables too:

function foo() {
 var aNum = 1;
 console.log(nameof(aNmum), aNum);
}


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM Behrang Saeedzadeh 
behran...@gmail.commailto:behran...@gmail.com wrote:

So basically we could use it like this:


function aFunc(aParam) {
throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
}



and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some hacky 
code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.

--
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
--
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.orgmailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discusshttps://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmail.mozilla.org%2flistinfo%2fes-discussdata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=7DHMx5gTd2OexSlKscSrKlMIxABMUkOKRC%2fuCbc6pWk%3d
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-08 Thread Isiah Meadows 
To be honest, most larger IDEs also search for references in strings, and
even if it doesn't, any decent editor can do a regex replace of
`identifierName` without problem. I don't see much of a problem here. Also,
do you know of any other language that has this at the syntax level (not
macro)?

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 23:12 Ron Buckton ron.buck...@microsoft.com wrote:

 One of the main purposes of the `nameof` operator is to provide the string
 value of a symbol, so that if you perform a Rename refactoring of that
 symbol that the change is also reflected. This is primarily for cases where
 you perform precondition assertions tied to an argument:

 ```
   ...
   static void Method(string x) {
 if (x == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(x));
 ...
   }
 ```

 Now, if I later rename `x`, I don't need to also find any string literals
 of x and manually update them.

 There are other uses of `nameof`, but they all boil down to roughly the
 same thing.

 Ron
 --
 From: Isiah Meadows isiahmead...@gmail.com
 Sent: ‎8/‎8/‎2015 7:23 PM
 To: Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com; EcmaScript Discuss Mailing
 List es-discuss@mozilla.org
 Subject: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for
 JavaScript.

 Call me crazy, but I don't see anything that couldn't be done more
 concisely with a string literal. Is it supposed to be able to do this?

 ```js
 function foo(x) {
   return nameof(x);
 }

 foo(bar); // bar;
 ```

 In that case, the engine would have to keep track of usages as well, in a
 similar sense as `arguments.callee`, and if it were a function, it would
 make optimization quite difficult, as engines don't have the capacity to
 statically analyze that such a function is used.

 If it is like `typeof`, we now have a breaking change - a keyword that was
 a valid Identifier before.

 ```js
 // Error?
 function nameof(value) {
   return value.name
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fvalue.namedata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=pwV45avF9RX6COETpoLIY4EF%2bmCVmk6kEEmLc2JXSCY%3d
 ;
 }

 var bar = {name: 2};
 nameof(bar); // bar or 2?
 ```

 I don't think this is going to work out in practice, not in ECMAScript
 proper. You might appreciate Sweet.js, though.

 On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 21:27 Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com wrote:

 Forgot to mention that nameof works with local variables too:

 function foo() {
  var aNum = 1;
  console.log(nameof(aNmum), aNum);
 }


 On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM Behrang Saeedzadeh behran...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 So basically we could use it like this:


 function aFunc(aParam) {
 throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
 }


 and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


 This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some
 hacky code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.
 --
 Best regards,
 Behrang Saeedzadeh

 --
 Best regards,
 Behrang Saeedzadeh
 ___
 es-discuss mailing list
 es-discuss@mozilla.org
 https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmail.mozilla.org%2flistinfo%2fes-discussdata=01%7c01%7cron.buckton%40microsoft.com%7ca2e2c4d35400435810d008d2a061897d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1sdata=7DHMx5gTd2OexSlKscSrKlMIxABMUkOKRC%2fuCbc6pWk%3d


___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for JavaScript.

2015-08-07 Thread Behrang Saeedzadeh 
So basically we could use it like this:


function aFunc(aParam) {
throw new Error(nameof(aParam));
}


and nameof(aParam) would return the string aParam.


This is possible to do even right now using arguments.callee and some hacky
code, but having it built-in to spec would be nicer IMHO.
-- 
Best regards,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss