Globalization API discussion

[Brendan Eich]

On Nov 20, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>> 
>>> Ah, yes and agreed. That was definitely not relayed in the message below- thanks for the clarification, the context does make a difference.
>> 
>> Destructuring parameters + default values really shine here:
>> 
>>   function frob(arg1, arg2, {foo = defFoo, bar = defBar, baz = defBaz}) {
>>     // just use foo, bar, and baz instead of ops.foo, etc.
>>   }
>> 
>> instead of the song and dance cited below.
> 
> Actually, I think you would want to say:
> 
>   function frob(arg1, arg2, {foo = defFoo, bar = defBar, baz = defBaz}={}) {

Thanks.


>     ...
>   }
> 
> at least, according to how the ES6 draft is currently written.  Destructurings starts by applying ToObject to the value that is to be destructured.  ToObject throws for undefined and null.  So, destructuring a missing argument would throw.
> 
> It may be that for destructuring, in general,  we want to treat a null/undefined RHS as { }.  Eg:
> 
> let {a=1,b=2,c=3} = undefined;
> //should this throw or should this be the same as:
> let {a=1,b=2,c=3} = { };

I would not add more implicit magic to JS. E4X had junk like this in it, which only ever concealed bugs.

/be


> 
> whichever way we  go, we should treat all destructuring binding forms, including formal parameters, consistently.
> 
> Finally, whether or not you want to directly destructure an options object in this matter probably depends upon its treatment of missing options.  If a missing option means something different from use the default value (such is the case of property descriptors) then you wouldn't want to unconditionally set missing property values to the default.
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111120/72465957/attachment.html>