destructuring in formal parameters?
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>
>> 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
>> grammar, which rules out expression closures as proposed (and
>> The http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:strawman is the
>> place to
> 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
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.
More information about the Es-discuss