> ```
> const map = IMap#{"foo": 42, bar: 44};
> ```
> It could desugar as, for the sake of example:
>
> ```
> Foo#{key: value, ...}
> ➔
> Foo[Symbol.literalOf]([[key, value], ...][Symbol.iterator]())
> ```
I like this proposal. However, Maps should guarantee insertion order when
traversing the keys and values and desugaring it like that does not respect
this guarantee or more precisely it will lead to (in my opinion) unexpected
order of the keys.
```
Object.keys({1: 6, bar: 'Hello', 2: 8}); // → [ '1', '2', 'bar' ]
```
If I'm not mistaken this will be same order for `{1: 6, bar: 'Hello', 2:
8}[Symbol.iterator]()`.
This implies that:
```
Map#{1: 6, bar: 'Hello', 2: 8};
```
Will not have entries in the order `[[1, 6], ['bar', 'Hello'], [2,8]]` but
instead `[[1,6], [2,8], ['bar','Hello']]`.
This means that possible future destructuring of a Map will be harder to
reason about.
2015-10-28 2:21 GMT+01:00 Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com>:
> 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> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
