> You're right, this implies destructuring binding forms behave in a way
> that I flagged as possibly not wanted:
>
> let {p?: {q: r}} = o;
>
> would bind r to undefined for any o that doesn't have a p or that does but
> o.p doesn't have a q.
So as Nil cascades downward, it essentially converts the whole subtree to a
"deeply" irrefutable pattern.
> On second look this is not as bad as I thought. It would be bad if r were
> not bound (so an outer r could become visible) depending on o's dynamics.
> That seems right out!
Yes, let's lobbest thy holy hand grenade at that one.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
