On Nov 11, 2011, at 5:06 PM, David Herman wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> ...
>> We currently haven't specified this syntactic form. I'm not sure if it adds
>> enough value to justify the added conceptual complexity.
>
> I think it's a pretty big win, and I'd argue it's totally intuitive. The
> great thing about destructuring is that you can intuit the semantics without
> actually having to understand the details of the desugaring/semantics.
>
> Also: we'll definitely want to allow it for splicing, so the grammar will
> have to allow it already, and symmetry/consistency argue for allowing it in
> destructuring too. Likewise for function formals and actuals.
Embedded spreads is already in the ES6 draft for both array literals and
argument lists. I'm not at all sure that embedded rests in destructurings are
such a good idea. Just to start with, what does this mean:
[a,b,...r,c,d = [1,2,3]
Similarly for formal parameters:
(function (a,b,...r,c,d) {return [a,b,c,d]})(1,2,3);
If it isn't obvious what it means it probably should be in the language.
I believe implementers will generally want positional parameters to be a fixed
stack offsets so constant offsets can be emitted into the instruction stream
for referencing them. Allowing the above, means that the offset of c and d
need to be dynamically determined for each invocation.
This sort of destructuring is not real pattern matching. Non-righthand side
trailing rests seem like it is pushing things too. It goes beyond reasonable
utility and comprehensibility into something whose semantics is non-obvious and
which may negatively impact implementations.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
