allen at wirfs-brock.com
Sun Jul 12 21:14:10 UTC 2015
On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum wrote:
> I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify.
> I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I did not intend to start a discussion about named parameters' merits vs passing an object literal (I thing Axel had a blog about that a while ago).
> What I'm interested in is where the is TC standing in this regard.
> - Are there any proposals currently under work (TC's GitHub suggests no)?
not with TC39, AFAIK
> - Were there proposals in the past that were rejected or abandoned?
probably (and informally) but you'd have to search the last 10 years of es-discuss and TC39 meeting notes
> - Was there discussion about named parameters in the language before?
Yes, when object destructuring of function parameters was first being discussed. The TC39 consensus was that the option object pattern had already adequately filled that ecological niche so we focused on making sure that parameter destructuring were useful for dealing with them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss