Named Paramters

[Benjamin Gruenbaum]

Ok, thanks, that clarifies it.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Allen
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150713/ce9aff43/attachment.html>