A Function.tag proposal?

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 18:01:44 UTC 2020


I think it doesn't matter where it lands, and I've overlooked at the
already available String.raw.

My idea is to have it "no matter where, or how named" as it's the
functionality I am after, not the name.

String.plain sounds great, but since template literals tag functions are
named "template literals tag functions", I've thought String.tag would
implicitly describe the intent.

And then again, I don't care about the name, "we" (developers that use
template literals a lot) would love it no matter how it's called ;-)

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:16 PM Bergi <a.d.bergi at web.de> wrote:

> Hi Andrea,
>
> my 5ct: Putting the static function on the `Function` object doesn't
> make any sense to me. Using `String.tag` seems like much more sensible
> choice. Or, how about `String.plain`, in contrast to `String.raw`?
>
> I can see the use case, altough I'd really prefer tooling to become more
> intelligent in that regard.
>
> best,
>  Bergi
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200622/019be2ff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list