Continuing woes in reading the ES6 spec language

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Sep 13 09:18:43 PDT 2013


> Oliver Hunt <mailto:oliver at apple.com>
> September 13, 2013 6:11 PM
> Okay so we were discussing among ourselves, and we thought that a sane 
> "desugaring" for
>
> function f(x=expr) {
> ...
> }
>
> would be
>
> function f(x) {
> if (arguments.length < 1) x=expr;
> ...
> }

ES6 has two things that go against this, already in consensus among 
those at the meetings (we miss you shiny fruit-company people ;-):

* You can have default parameters before parameters without defaults.

* You can pass undefined to trigger defaulting -- this is important for 
composition / delegation.

I think we all agree that new formal parameter syntax gets rid of 
arguments. Yay!

The real issue that Andreas's proposal addressed was the insanity of 
body declarations hoisting to be in view of default. But it sounds like 
we do not have consensus on whether or not that's crazy.
>
> This would produce a consistent and easy to follow semantic for 
> default evaluation, it doesn't introduce any new types of scope, nor 
> does it require any new concepts (temporal dead zones, etc) to be 
> learned by a developer who just wants default parameter values.

The hoisting issue still hits your non-consensus actual parameter count 
(arguments.length) thing, though. When reading the function in source 
order, one sees a default expression. Mentally moving the defaulting to 
the body means that hoisted body decls trump outer bindings for names in 
the expression, indeed. But mentally moving is the objectionable part -- 
cognitive load, and non-source-order evaluation (more hoisting).

Hoisting need not perpetuate itself this way. We can do better, or at 
least Andreas proposes that we do. I'm sympathetic.

Temporal dead zones are indeed weirder but perhaps pay for themselves by 
catching errors. But is it an error to use an outer name binding in the 
default expression, given its position in the formal parameter list? I 
think not.
>
> We also felt that if you use default or rest parameters we should 
> consider that as a opt out from the magic arguments object, and just 
> poison the arguments identifier entirely (no read, write, or declare)

SpiderMonkey's prototype implementation does this, and I asserted above 
that ES6 specs it. Not so?

/be



More information about the es-discuss mailing list