Proposal: named and bound deconstructions

Jerry Schulteis jdschulteis at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 24 19:28:34 UTC 2018


 I don't think declaring and destructuring formal parameters all at once improves clarity.Once you get beyond a toy example, the parameter list, like a sentence with many phrases, becomes awkward, causing readers difficulty in following the meaning.
Technical writing guidelines include the use of concise sentences.
I opine that this guideline applies to code as well.
Your proposed syntax puts the reference to the whole on the left and the destructuring pattern on the right, the opposite of destructuring assignment.
The existing meaning of the exclamation mark is to negate the meaning of what follows.That seems an odd choice to overload with the meaning "keep a reference".C++ uses the ampersand for declaring a reference. Not everyone knows C++, but at least it has some basis in an existing language.
If I felt this was needed, my version would look like this:```const someMiddlewareFn = ({name} &original, {name: newName} &updated, next) => {```
However, I like to think of ECMAScript as somewhere near the happy medium on a programming language continuum that puts the terseness of APL at one extreme and the verbosity of COBOL on the other. I think this is an unnecessary nudge in the terse direction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180124/bef66aa1/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list