What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Wed Jun 19 18:31:38 UTC 2019


I get yet again that the forest here is being missed for the trees.

@guest271314 This isn't specific to any one IDE, and isn't even
specific to static tools. As mentioned before, this has applicability
to assertion libraries (like a userland version of Power Assert) as
well as other things. It's almost exclusively just quality-of-life
improvements to developers, but it's not specific to IDEs or even
static tooling.

-----

Isiah Meadows
contact at isiahmeadows.com
www.isiahmeadows.com

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:28 PM guest271314 <guest271314 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > You have ignored the context from Jordan’s email (emphasis added):
>
>
>
> >> again, `Object.keys({ y })[0]` will give you the string `y`, and will survive refactoring tools. you can even do `function nameof(obj) { return Object.keys(obj)[0]; }` and then `nameof({ y })`.
>
>
> No, did not _ignore_ the context of the email.
>
>
> Simply have no reference point for relying on an external tool, that is, essentially a text editor, to write and dynamically "refactor" code. Here, the code will be tested outside of the text editor in short order once composed.
>
>
> Was able to rename text at Mousepad and record the entire process within 20 seconds without needing to use ```nameof``` and without encountering any issues such as mispelling the variable name or the text editor trying to independently determine what the words am typing mean. The text editor is just - a text editor.
>
>
> Perhaps other JavaScript users who rely on "refactoring tools" and "rename refactoring" in an IDE can relate. Not able to gather the significance of ```nameof``` here - as in each case the user has to write the name of the variable anyway. To each their own.
>
>
> > VSCode is a popular editor that supports JavaScript *and* is a refactoring tool. Rename refactoring was the subject I was responding to.
>
>
>
>
>
> Was not previously aware or did not realize that the _individual choice_ to use a particular text editor was a substantial reason to ask for change to the entire JavaScript language in order for specific users to be able to interact with an entirely different language.
>
>
> If VSCode is particularly "popular" why cannot VSCode be specified and implemented by and for the users who rely on the text editor to interpret what the users' intent is when writing code.
>
>
> In that case  ```mkvmerge``` should be specified as a JavaScript method. ```webm``` is a "popular" (cannot help but to recollect "Popularity" https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/) video container that is a subset of the Matroska container, where if that method were specified in JavaScript a user would be able to do ```mkvmerge({w: true, o: "int_all.webm":  i: ["int.webm", "int1.webm", ...."intN.webm"]})``` instead of ```$ mkvmerge -w -o int_all.webm int.webm + int1.webm``` at ```terminal```.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:29 PM Ron Buckton <Ron.Buckton at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> > How is VSCode related to JavaScript?
>>
>>
>>
>> You have ignored the context from Jordan’s email (emphasis added):
>>
>>
>>
>> >> again, `Object.keys({ y })[0]` will give you the string `y`, and will survive refactoring tools. you can even do `function nameof(obj) { return Object.keys(obj)[0]; }` and then `nameof({ y })`.
>>
>>
>>
>> VSCode is a popular editor that supports JavaScript *and* is a refactoring tool. Rename refactoring was the subject I was responding to.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a number of reasons VSCode has implemented rename refactoring in this fashion. Not the least of which is that an editor cannot fully understand user intent. Let us say, for example, you are working with Gulp:
>>
>>
>>
>> ```
>>
>> const cwd /*1*/ = ".";
>>
>> gulp.src("*.js", { cwd /*2*/ });
>>
>> ```
>>
>>
>>
>> If you were to rename `cwd` at (1) and it *also* renamed the `cwd` property at (2), you would have introduced an error in the call because a `cwd` option to gulp has a special meaning. Since the editor doesn’t know the intent of the user may be to rename *both* symbols, it remains conservative and choses only to rename the binding and its references, producing:
>>
>>
>>
>> ```
>>
>> const currentDir = ".";
>>
>> gulp.src("*.js", { cwd: currentDir });
>>
>> ```
>>
>>
>>
>> There is also the issue of collisions:
>>
>>
>>
>> ```
>>
>> const foo /*1*/ = 1;
>>
>> f({ foo /*2*/, bar: 2 });
>>
>> ```
>>
>>
>>
>> If I were to use a refactoring tool to rename `foo` at (1) to `bar`, it would *not* be safe to rename the property at (2) as well as it would introduce a semantic error that would prevent the entire script from executing.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the context of Jordan’s email, that means that `Object.keys({ y })[0]` would *not* necessarily survive refactoring tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> On Behalf Of guest271314
>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 7:40 AM
>> Cc: es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> Subject: Re: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression for
>>
>>
>>
>> > In VSCode, if you rename ‘foo’ to ‘bar’ at /1/, you get this:
>>
>>
>>
>> How is VSCode related to JavaScript?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the proposal really based on creating ```nameof``` in JavaScript to workaround output at a text editor?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not file a bug with the individuals who write the code for VSCode or just write a text editor code from scratch which does what you want as to "refactoring". Or write the code by hand and test the code  to avoid having to rely on _any_ text editor to catch your mistakes?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


More information about the es-discuss mailing list