Status/Thoughts on Guards?

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Tue Aug 19 19:52:21 PDT 2014


See also
http://disnetdev.com/blog/2011/08/23/Contracts.coffee-Contracts-For-JavaScript-and-CoffeeScript/
and http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=224900

I am a fan of making it notationally easier to inject runtime validation of
some sort, whether starting from guards or from either of the approaches
above.

>From discussions at TC39, it is clear that any such proposal would be a
long fight. I don't know that anyone is willing to invest the time needed
to lead that fight. I know I'm not -- it is unlikely to bubble to the top
of my priority queue.




On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Curtis Steckel <steckel at squareup.com>
wrote:

> I've been spending time lately writing a lot of repeated validation code
> for function parameters and using popular object schema validation
> libraries like Joi (https://github.com/hapijs/joi) which led me to
> re-reading and thinking about strawman:guards (
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards.
>
> **I'm curious what TC39 and the es-discuss' current thoughts and attitudes
> towards guards is at the moment.**
>
> They seem to come up every once in a while in TC39 notes, but usually only
> through a tangential mention followed by a mix of "that would eliminate the
> possibility of guards," "guards could work," "let's talk about something
> else (not guards)."
>
> I see that Dave Herman seems to have some opinions on guards and obviously
> Waldemar has ideas (given his activity on the straw man). Anyone else?
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140819/6286d159/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list