destructuring in formal parameters?

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Nov 14 09:07:58 PST 2008


On Nov 13, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>  
> wrote:
>> You asked last time and I answered:
>>
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/007013.html
>>
>> 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 http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:strawman 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.

It's not useful to say "could have no chance" -- the subjunctive mood  
applied to "chance" means "could have every chance" is possible too.  
Why write either?

What is *likely* remains to be seen, but the strawman pages all have a  
good chance of getting in. Otherwise we wouldn't be spending time on  
them.

Since we are not starting from a blank slate, the strawman namespace  
is not anything-goes. It contains candidate material for the harmony  
namespace, based on positive discussions here and in TC39, which is  
meeting next week.

Please feel free to start (or re-start) discussion on anything in  
strawman: on the wiki.


> I was
> hoping for a place I could go for a periodically updated summary of
> the things generally considered harmonious.

I'll make such a page and confirm its contents at next week's meeting.

/be


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list