Clearly it has utility. Same with callable object protocols ;-).
The debate is always about whether every useful thing must be included,
when there are long-hands aplenty. This cuts both ways, since
destructuring is mainly an affordance, syntactic sugar.
The other issue here is standardized grammar and parsing algorithm
(LR(1) with lookahead and [no LineTerminator here] restrictions). In
binding forms we can specialize the pattern sub-grammar and IIRC Allen's
draft ES6 spec does.
In contrast, for general destructuring assignment expressions, the LHS
must be covered by ObjectLiteral or ArrayLiteral. No 'as' in those, but
perhaps this just says that 'as', if we add it, is only in the binding
forms' pattern sub-grammar.
/be
David Nolen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.org>> wrote:
We've supported destructuring for years and no one has asked for
this. I say YAGNI and when in doubt, leave it out. One can always
write two destructuring declarations without much repetition:
But who has been using it? Certainly not the general JS development
community.
let {b} = obj;
let {x,y} = b;
but of course one would just write
let {x, y} = obj.b;
in that contrived case.
Main thing is, not having as-patterns is not a big deal based on
experience with JS1.7+ since 2006 in Mozilla code.
/be
I've found it quite useful in Clojure/Script and I'm sure folks who
have encountered the feature in the ML derived languages would agree.
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
