How about:
let {length} = "abc";
I think the conversion keeps the illusion alive that every value in JS is an
object.
On Nov 7, 2011, at 18:21 , Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 7 November 2011 17:34, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>>> It is just another way to
>>> silently inject an `undefined' that is tedious to track down. We
>>> already have too many of those...
>>
>> It is how the language currently behaves in all situations where an object
>> is needed but a primitive values is provided.
>> We want consistency in language design, not a hodgepodge of special cases
>> and different rules.
>
> Hm, I don't quite buy that. There are plenty of places in ES today
> where we don't convert but throw, e.g. "in", "instanceof", various
> methods of Object, etc. Destructuring arguably is closely related to
> operators like "in". Implicit conversion would violate the principle
> of least surprise for either, IMHO.
>
> I agree that consistency is a nice goal, but it seems like that train
> is long gone for ES. Also, if consistency implies proliferating an
> existing design mistake then I'm not sure it should have the highest
> priority.
>
>
>>> When would this ever be useful behaviour instead of just obfuscating bugs?
>>
>> let {toFixed, toExponential} = 42;
>
> OK, I guess "useful" is a flexible term. Would you recommend using
> that style as a feature?
>
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
