Extended dot notation (pick notation) proposal

Jason Orendorff jason.orendorff at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 22:57:37 UTC 2016

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Bob Myers <rtm at gol.com> wrote:

> Sorry for using ALL CAPS. I will not do that any more. You're right: this
> proposal DOES (oops, I meant *does*) increase the size of the spec. Is that
> the new criteria, that no proposal may increase the size of the spec?

This conversation has been kind of strange for me.

JO: new cognitive burden has to be justified
BM: this isn't new cognitive burden, it's removing cognitive burden
JO: that makes no sense
BM: are you saying we need to freeze js forever?

...Well, no. Obviously.

But new cognitive burden has to be justified.

TC39 didn't accept array comprehensions. They were generally well-liked,
but they didn't introduce any new capabilities and it was decided they
didn't pull their weight. That's the bar any new proposal has to get over.

Then we might as well freeze JS right now.
> The "extra words" you refer to are nothing more this:
> > You can also put deconstructing syntax following a dot after an object.
> This will result in a new object with properties determined by the
> deconstructor.

I think your gist is more a serious attempt at a reasonable explanation.
Don't trivialize it -- people who *don't* get the memo will have to search
StackOverflow for `.{`.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160923/a633aaa7/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list