Array comprehensions shorter syntax (?)

Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at
Wed Jun 1 00:21:57 PDT 2011

On 01.06.2011 10:57, David Herman wrote:
>> P.S.: another question I have -- is it worth and makes sense to raise a topic on considering/standardizing the pattern matching (Dave's proposal)? Brendan mentioned on Twitter that it's "too late" (?), but IMO this proposal is much more interesting and needed for the lang than e.g. WeakMaps (which of course are also useful stuff, but not so powerful addition as pattern-matching would).
> Not really. I want to see a pattern matching form for JS as much as anyone (and I did propose it) but it hasn't had enough time to get refined and promoted to the next stage. I only first proposed it a couple months ago, so it needs more time to mature.

I understand, and actually I mentioned/proposed them here also an year 
ago and said that it would be great to have p-matching in JS.

> We have a very large set of features in official Harmony status for, and we are now beginning the refinement phase -- the meeting last week was the cutoff for proposals to get promoted to Harmony status. But don't despair! We aren't going to stop working on the next round of proposals. We'll keep the pipeline full with strawmen for even as we refine the proposals. As Brendan said at the last meeting, TC39 is superscalar. ;-)

Yeah, glad to hear it.

> And BTW, comparing apples and oranges like pattern matching and weak maps is not really meaningful. In fact, if either one is more powerful it's weak maps; there's no way to simulate them in ES5, whereas pattern matching is just syntactic convenience... albeit totally awesome convenience. :)

Ah, come on, of course I didn't compare them apples-to-apples. Just said 
that it's more likely that some elegant and powerful syntactic 
construction/sugar will be used more often than use-cases with WeakMaps 
and it turns out that much more time is given to WeakMaps than to 


More information about the es-discuss mailing list