Status/Thoughts on Guards?
jonathan at belairlabs.com
Tue Aug 19 20:54:00 PDT 2014
+1 for https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/224900/safets.pdf ... some
really good research. As Mark said, though, it's more likely we'll get a
fight than anything productive from such a conversation, which is quite
unfortunate :( .
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> See also
> 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
> 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>
>> 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 (
>> **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
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss