Am neither for nor against the proposal. Do not entertain "like"s or
"dislike"s in any field of endeavor. Am certainly not in a position to
prohibit anything relevant JavaScript. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the Law.
Have yet to view a case where code will be "broken" by ```nameof``` not
being a JavaScript feature. "robustness", as already mentioned, is a
subjective adjective that is not capable of being objectively evaluated as
to code itself. That description is based on preference or choice.
In lieu of the proposal being specificed, use the posted code example of
```Object.keys()``` that "works".
```
function func1({userName = void 0} = {}) {
console.assert(userName !== undefined, [{userName}, 'property needs to be
defined'])
}
```
provides a direct indication that the property value is required to be
defined. Note that the example code posted thus far does not first check if
```options``` is passed at all, for which ```nameof``` will not provide any
asssitance.
Usually try to meet requirement by means already available in FOSS
browsers. Have no interest in TypeScript or using an IDE.
FWIW, have no objection to the proposal.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:53 PM Stas Berkov <stas.ber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> guest271314, what is you point against `nameof` feature?
>
> If you don't like it - don't use it. Why prohibit this feature for
> those who find it beneficial?
>
> I see `nameof` beneficial in following cases
>
> Case 1. Function guard.
> ```
> function func1(options) {
> ...
> if (options.userName == undefined) {
> throw new ParamNullError(nameof options.userName); //
> `ParamNullError` is a custom error, derived from `Error`, composes
> error message like "Parameter cannot be null: userName".
> // `Object.keys({options.userName})[0]` will not work here
> }
> }
> ```
>
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info
> Those ES functions that accept field name as string.
> e.g.
> ```
> const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');
> ```
> vs
> ```
> const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof
> object1.property1);
> // `Object.keys({options1.property1})[0]` will not work here
> ```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during
> refactoring (robustness).
>
> It would make devs who use IDE more productive and make their life
> easier. Why not give them such possiblity and make them happy?
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
