Default operator strawman - ||| rather than ??
brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Jun 15 17:44:26 PDT 2012
T.J. Crowder wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 22:22, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org
> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>> wrote:
> If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
> But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if
> "wouldn't hurt" is the answer for syntax proposals.
> Who said it was?
You summarized Herby to that effect:
"Herby's ("wouldn't hurt").
> New syntax does hurt. It hurts by requiring a transpiler or full
> compiler to target old browsers. It hurts if it's botched, because
> you cannot polyfill to patch it. It costs inordinately compared to
> deferring and seeing if enough use-cases arise.
> I'm sorry: "botched"?! What exactly is "botched" about this?
You are misreading my generic words. I'm not talking about a proposal of
yours, or of mine.
> In fact, I don't think I was pushing any particular syntax. I think I
> was clear about asking _whether_ people saw value in the semantics of
> it, not the syntax. It's fine if people don't see value; is there a
> problem with asking the question?
I was describing the hazards of adding syntax that "wouldn't hurt".
Syntax should be added only when it clearly helps:
* It brings new semantics not expressible in the language (let, const,
* It is an affordance without new semantics for a common pattern that's
verbose and error-prone when open-coded.
More information about the es-discuss