> P.S.: another question I have -- is it worth and makes sense to raise a topic > on considering/standardizing the pattern matching (Dave's proposal)? > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:pattern_matching Brendan > mentioned on Twitter that it's "too late" (?), but IMO this proposal is much > more interesting and needed for the lang than e.g. WeakMaps (which of course > are also useful stuff, but not so powerful addition as pattern-matching > would).
Not really. I want to see a pattern matching form for JS as much as anyone (and I did propose it) but it hasn't had enough time to get refined and promoted to the next stage. I only first proposed it a couple months ago, so it needs more time to mature. We have a very large set of features in official Harmony status for ES.next, and we are now beginning the refinement phase -- the meeting last week was the cutoff for proposals to get promoted to Harmony status. But don't despair! We aren't going to stop working on the next round of proposals. We'll keep the pipeline full with strawmen for ES.next.next even as we refine the ES.next proposals. As Brendan said at the last meeting, TC39 is superscalar. ;-) And BTW, comparing apples and oranges like pattern matching and weak maps is not really meaningful. In fact, if either one is more powerful it's weak maps; there's no way to simulate them in ES5, whereas pattern matching is just syntactic convenience... albeit totally awesome convenience. :) Dave _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
