Refutable destructuring

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at
Mon Aug 12 02:22:55 PDT 2013

On 10 August 2013 22:15, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> Pattern matching is more precise and flexible, and that's why we considered
> changing destructuring (which uses the pattern subgrammar) to refutable from
> irrefutable. Even now with destructuring irrefutable, patterns in catch
> clauses, match statements/expressions, or other future forms would want the
> same subgrammar, as much as possible -- but with refutability.

I'm confused now. Was there an actual decision to go back to
irrefutable matching? I don't see that in the meeting notes (just an
argument that it would be future hostile, which I strongly agree


More information about the es-discuss mailing list