destructuring in formal parameters?

Peter Michaux petermichaux at
Thu Nov 13 17:08:46 PST 2008

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>>> IIRC formal parameter destructuring was Harmonious when I presented it in
>>> July.
>> Is there a published list of things which are considered "harmonious"?
> You asked last time and I answered:
> The only changes since then have been visible on es-discuss -- mainly
> lambda, lexical scope, and the agreement to use an unambiguous bottom-up
> grammar, which rules out expression closures as proposed (and implemented).
> The is the place to
> look.

As far as I understand, the things on the strawman pages could have no
chance of ever making it into the next major revision of ES. I was
hoping for a place I could go for a periodically updated summary of
the things generally considered harmonious. I thought between the time
I asked previously and now that sort of page may have appeared.

>> I'm particularly curious how lambdas have be received by the technical
>> committee members after the long discussions and also classes as
>> sugar.
> I missed the last TC39 meeting, but the reaction on the list from Mark
> Miller has been positive (indeed, instrumental in the case of lambdas).



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list