An array destructing specification choice

Lasse Reichstein reichsteinatwork at gmail.com
Sat Nov 5 09:59:40 PDT 2011


On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> In the following declaration, what should be the value of z?
>
> let [z,y,z] = {0:0, 1:1, length: 2, 2:2};

(I assume the pattern should be [x,y,z], not [z,y,z], or am I missing a point?)

> should it be be 2 or undefined

If it does anything at all (and not, say, throw a TypeError because
the RHS isn't an Array, which it won't), I'd go for 2.

There is no reason to involve RHS.length at all. The LHS isn't an
array, why should it require array-like-ness of the RHS. The LHS
together with the assignment operator is a construct that binds the
properties "0", "1", and "2" of the object on the RHS to the variables
"x", "y", and "z". It should be equivalent to the pattern {0:x, 1:y,
2:z}.

What if the RHS doesn't have a length property at all? Or it has one
with a value that isn't convertible to a number? No need for that
complexity.

> undefined might be reasonable because it is an array pattern, and the source object is only has two "array-like" elements
> 2 might be reasonable because the source object actually has a property named "2"
>
> Which alternative will be least surprising to JS programmers?

Mine, obviously. At least the least surprising to me.
I've learned not to generalize from that.

/L


More information about the es-discuss mailing list