See also http://disnetdev.com/blog/2011/08/23/Contracts.coffee-Contracts-For-JavaScript-and-CoffeeScript/ and http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=224900
I am a fan of making it notationally easier to inject runtime validation of some sort, whether starting from guards or from either of the approaches above. >From discussions at TC39, it is clear that any such proposal would be a long fight. I don't know that anyone is willing to invest the time needed to lead that fight. I know I'm not -- it is unlikely to bubble to the top of my priority queue. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Curtis Steckel <stec...@squareup.com> wrote: > I've been spending time lately writing a lot of repeated validation code > for function parameters and using popular object schema validation > libraries like Joi (https://github.com/hapijs/joi) which led me to > re-reading and thinking about strawman:guards ( > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards. > > **I'm curious what TC39 and the es-discuss' current thoughts and attitudes > towards guards is at the moment.** > > They seem to come up every once in a while in TC39 notes, but usually only > through a tangential mention followed by a mix of "that would eliminate the > possibility of guards," "guards could work," "let's talk about something > else (not guards)." > > I see that Dave Herman seems to have some opinions on guards and obviously > Waldemar has ideas (given his activity on the straw man). Anyone else? > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
