Optional argument types

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Tue Sep 25 12:54:22 PDT 2012

Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> then how about forgetting ducks and classes, going typeof without 
> implicit cast?


Why the desperation to get something -- *anything* -- even a half-baked 
idea based on broken old typeof? Where's the fire?

Sorry, at this point in the thread I have to start pushing back!

> function doStuff(i:number, key:string, u:undefined, b:boolean, 
> fn:function):object {}
> where `null` will still be under the object type.
> Would this be a decent compromise or a pointless effort for no benefits?

The latter -- sorry, have to call it as I see it. You've heard from 
Andreas, Alex, and Allen too.

Types are hard. This doesn't mean "no, never". But big brains are still 
researching the general topic, and btw what Dart has can't be called 
types according to the researchers and literature I trust.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list