let-in if do-expr is problematic? (was: Re: proposal: let in if parentheses)

[Jordan Harband]

It's off topic to the thread, so either way it's not appropriate to bring
it up here.

It's not objectively a mistake, and calling it "stupid" is absolutely
toxic. Be nice, or don't participate. I'll refer you to
https://github.com/tc39/code-of-conduct which governs this list as well.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 2:14 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dependency resolution logic is platform-specific
>
>
> @jordan, platform-specific logic is not a real problem?  the behavior of
> import-statement between babel (sync), native-browser (async),
> native-nodejs (sync???) are all subtly different.  and yes, it's
> effectively a with-statement.
>
> its not toxicity.  its reminding tc39 of their mistakes, so they don’t
> repeat something again as stupid and harmful to industry/web-development in
> the future.
>
> kai zhu
> kaizhu256 at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On 23 Aug 2018, at 1:22 PM, Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Kai, that makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't contributing productively
> to this thread. Dependency resolution logic is platform-specific - in
> browsers, it's "URLs", which I assume you understand, and in node using
> babel, it's "the same as require", which I'd assume any node user would
> understand. There's no relationship to "with" statements and no actual
> difficulty "debugging" them that I'm aware of after using them for years.
>
> Please stay on topic, and keep to yourself comments that are nothing more
> than random toxicity about the JS language.
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:12 AM, kai zhu <kaizhu256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> es6 import-statements are effectively with-statements …
>>
>> actually, they're *async* with-statements, with no callback-handling and
>> non-obvious dependency-resolution logic, for those of us trying to debug
>> them when things go wrong.
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2018 15:58, "Claude Pache" <claude.pache at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Le 21 août 2018 à 21:20, Herbert Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > It would be nice to know if do expressions have some a chance,
>>> otherwise some other syntax for let-in would be really helpful, especially
>>> now that we have arrow functions.
>>> >
>>> > I would propose to use different variant of let (maybe also const):
>>> >
>>> > OP 1:
>>> >
>>> >  let in a = b(), if (a) a.c();
>>> >
>>> > OP 2:
>>> >
>>> >  let in a = b(), if (a) c(a);
>>> >
>>> > Instead of
>>> >  const big = raw => {
>>> >    let cooked = cook(raw);
>>> >    return consumer => {
>>> >      // do things with consumer and cooked
>>> >    };
>>> >  };
>>> >
>>> >  const big = raw =>
>>> >    let in cooked = cook(raw), consume => {
>>> >      // do things with consumer and cooked
>>> >    };
>>> >
>>> > In short,
>>> >
>>> >  let in binding = expr, stmt|expr
>>> >
>>> > It may work for `const in` as well.
>>> >
>>> > Herby
>>> >
>>> > P.S.: Alternative syntax is "let a=3, b=4, ..., in foo(a,b,c,d)" but
>>> this can only tell late if it is plain let-up-to-end-of-scope or
>>> local-scope-let, so not sure if that may be a problem; OTOH you can chain
>>> more of them and resembles classical let-in better.
>>>
>>> Please, don’t take it too seriously: but have you thought about
>>> resuscitating the (in)famous `with` statement?
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> const big = raw =>
>>>     do with ({cooked: cook(raw)})
>>>         consumer => {
>>>             // do things with consumer and cooked
>>>         };;
>>> ```
>>>
>>> And no the two ”;”s are not a typo: I need to end both the `with`
>>> statement and the `const` declaration.
>>>
>>> But more seriously... those sorts of “clever” syntaxes (`let-in` or
>>> `do-with` or whatever), apart from complicating the language, are in danger
>>> of raising as much issues than they’re resolving; the double-semicolon
>>> oddity is one of them.
>>>
>>> —Claude
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180823/51be65ef/attachment.html>