Globalization API discussion

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at
Mon Nov 21 08:49:32 PST 2011

On Nov 20, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> On Nov 20, 2011, at 1:18 PM, David Herman wrote:
>>> I would not add more implicit magic to JS. E4X had junk like this in it, which only ever concealed bugs.
>> I'm of two minds about this. In the abstract, I agree with Brendan; fail-soft conceals bugs. But in reality, our destructuring logic is incredible fail-soft. Hardly anything in destructuring is treated as an error. And the syntax really *wants* to match the common pattern. So I'm torn.
> 1. Failing to write that means a destructuring parameter with default values within the pattern cannot be observed via arguments[i] as undefined (or null?). If missing, the undefined will be replaced by a fresh object. This isn't consistent with any other combination of destructuring parameters and parameter default values.

Actually, I've specified parameter default value initialization such that the arguments object is an array of the actual argument values. It contains no default value substitutions. Even if function f({a,b}) is interpreted as function f({a,b}=undefined)  the value of arguments[0] for a call of the form f(undefined) would still be undefined.

I'm not particularly in favor of treating undefined/null as { }, but I don't think the arguments object is particularly relevant to the issue.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list