fail-fast object destructuring (don't add more slop to sloppy mode)

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Jan 4 18:42:00 PST 2013


Kevin Smith wrote:
> I wonder:  in what way does this design effectively decide the design 
> for an existential member operator (?.)?
Adding suffix-? to the pattern language still leaves open some design 
decisions:

A. Whether to support suffix-? in expressions.
B. If not, whether to support ?. as a single lexeme for a saner 
existential operator, with censored internal-Nil.
C. If so, then ? and . compose, so: whether to expose Nil in the language.

I agree that given "yes" to A, ?. must be two lexemes and operators, one 
suffix-? and the other good ol' dot. But this does not imply "yes" to C.

I admit, it's cleaner and more CoffeeScript-friendly to say A="yes". 
That still could leave C="no", since of course (same runtime semantics 
as JS) CoffeeScript says "no" to C.

> If it does decide the matter, then it seems like it might as well go 
> into ES6.

That's not true. It's still more work to spec ?. as well as refutable 
destructuring for ES6. It requires an internal Nil (or Reference 
variation as Allen suggested to me). It requires grammar hassling to 
allow suffix-? in expressions.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list