There are a couple of people tossing around named parameter ideas that have
different identifiers than the argument identifier. What is wrong with what
Gary Guo originally said with `foo(bar: 5)`, it uses `:` for mapping
similar to an object literal, but does not require having contextual
knowledge and breaking changes like `=` would; it also does not require
having multiple identifiers for the same variable.
Perhaps I may be wrong here, but having multiple identifiers/bindings to
the same variable seems fraught with confusion.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Alexander Kit <alex....@atmajs.com> wrote:
> Seems everybody is pessimistic about this. But using optional `labels`
> would solve any problem with the minifiers.
> ```javascript
> // Not minified (Labels are optional, default are the variable names)
> function foo (bar = 1, baz = 2, bak = 3) {
> console.log(baz);
> }
> foo (baz: 2);
>
> // Minified
> function foo(bar:a=1,baz:b=2,bak:c=3){console.log(b)}
> foo(baz:2);
>
> // Explicit Label
> function foo (bar = 1, baz: myVar = 2, bak = 3) {
> console.log(myVar);
> }
> foo (baz: 2);
>
> // Minified (same)
> function foo(bar:a=1,baz:b=2,bak:c=3){console.log(b)}
> foo(baz:2);
> ```
>
> And when talking about static analysis, then it is really not always
> possible to determine the global function variables, but within the
> scope(s) it shouldn't be the problem. But anyway, the labels will cover all
> the cases.
>
> Sorry for bothering, if I miss something,
> Alex
>
> On 13 July 2015 at 14:54, Benjamin Gruenbaum <benjami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If we _wanted_ to add named parameters, we would _probably_ have a
>> _different_ name for the named parameter inside the function and outside
>> the function.
>>
>> ```js
>> function foo(x as y){
>>
>> }
>>
>> foo(y = 5);
>> ```
>>
>> Or something like that. That said, I'm not convinced we _need_ named
>> parameters, that they justify the additional cost or the overhead, that
>> current solutions like destructing aren't enough and so on. Even if we all
>> agreed that we want named parameters, and we agreed in general lines how it
>> should be done, and we convinced the TC, there would still be a lot of work
>> to actually "decide' they should make it to ES.
>>
>> So I suggest we close this thread and anyone who feel strongly about
>> including named parameters should work on a concrete proposal :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michał Wadas <michalwa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, it's impossible.
>>> > And when the arguments are renamed during the minification, all
>>> > the labels in function calls can be minified accordingly too.
>>>
>>> You can't statically determine which function will be called. Minifier
>>> CAN'T know in general case if your $(selector='wow') calls jQuery or
>>> some other function at minify time.
>>>
>>> So: you can't rely on optional parameters in any CDN-distributed file
>>> (because your minifier doesn't know about it's pre-minification
>>> identifiers), minifier have to avoid any parameters names clash at any
>>> cost.
>>>
>>> Possible solution: add gramar explicitly declare optional parameters
>>> by keyword to avoid minifaction of their names names.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
