Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2008, at 7:04 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> The destructuring pattern here is an array, but objects work too:
>>> js> let {length: len} = foo()
>> The above has always instinctively looked to me like the variable
>> "length" is being assigned the value of the "len" property of the
>> object returned by foo. That is the way an object literal works: the
>> right value is assigned to the left property.
I find that it's hard to get used to. I keep interpreting this...
var {a: x, b: y, c: z} = fn();
...as...
with (fn())
{ temporary_object = {a: x, b: y, c: z}
}
// Splash out the object.
...(but restricted to returned values). Also, my brain wants to
allow the following, or at least reserve as a future possibility...
var {a: x, b: y+z} = fn();
...but with the chosen inverted semantics it would have to be
written like this...
var {x: a, y+z: b} = fn();
...which looks weird.
> Probably not instinct (no survival advantage ;-); possibly lack of
> familiarity with the new form in context. Try using it in more
> realistic code for a few days (especially the shorthand form)
The shorthand form would be the same (or am I missing something?)
> and
> ping me if it still reads like an object initialiser.
Stockholm syndrome!
People can get used to anything. Just look at Perl. :-)
--
Ingvar von Schoultz
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
