True, but easy to mess up and only be treated to a runtime error. Three nested brackets at the start and end could definitely be better, and this just encourages people to use POJSOs instead. Also not a very uniform interface if you look at how to construct a Map, Set or Immutable.List at present, though admittedly constructor call for the ES6 types would be a partial improvement.
On Wednesday, 28 October 2015, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > I agree this is pretty important. Using actual maps really frees up a > lot of > > complexity, but the syntax is cumbersome to say the least. > > > > Whatever the decided syntax, bare words as string keys is a really bad > idea > > IMO. The key syntax should be parsed as an expression, like the values > are, > > and like they are in basically every other language. > > > > Another outstanding issue is that we might want the syntax for > > `Immutable.Map`, or `WeakMap`, or `MapTwoPointOh` that improves > deficiency > > $x, $y and $z. I'd say introducing a special syntax for `Map` right now > is > > not ideal. > > Currently, the "extensible literal syntax" for this isn't that bad: > > const bar = 43; > const map = Immutable.Map([["foo", 42], [bar, 44]]); > > It's a little more verbose because the entries have to be surrounded > by [], but hey. > > ~TJ >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
