Default operator strawman - ||| rather than ??

Brendan Eich 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")[2].

...

[2] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-June/023510.html
"

>     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, 
modules, generators).
* It is an affordance without new semantics for a common pattern that's 
verbose and error-prone when open-coded.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list