You've already made this point, so you're not adding anything new to the discussion now. Especially since your point seems to be "I don't understand" and "it won't help me personally" It's time to take a step back and allow others to discuss. If a formal proposal eventuates, you can continue to make your points there
On Jun 20 2019, at 11:05 am, guest271314 <guest271...@gmail.com> wrote: > The current proposal is redundant. The user has to already know and write the > exact name of the variable, or try to guess the variable name to not, or to, > catch an error that includes the name of the identifier as a string. Why > should the user have to already know any write the variable as a literal? If > that feature is valuable to users of JavaScript by all means write that > definition. > > Extending the original proposal with the ability for the user to use > ```nameof``` to get list of all varibales declared using ```const``` and > ```let``` without having to already know and write the exact variable name, > that is, when called without an adjacent exact variable identifier, e.g., > ```const nameofall = nameof *; // ["y", "x"] which can also include line > number```, as well, would not be redundant, and would also benefit users of > JavaScript directly where defining the feature would provide values that are > not currently possible (without previously knowing and writing the exact name > of the variable identifier, or guessing the names of the identifiers, which > should be also already be possible). > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:31 PM Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com > (mailto:isiahmead...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > I get yet again that the forest here is being missed for the trees. > > > > @guest271314 This isn't specific to any one IDE, and isn't even > > specific to static tools. As mentioned before, this has applicability > > to assertion libraries (like a userland version of Power Assert) as > > well as other things. It's almost exclusively just quality-of-life > > improvements to developers, but it's not specific to IDEs or even > > static tooling. > > > > ----- > > Isiah Meadows > > cont...@isiahmeadows.com (mailto:cont...@isiahmeadows.com) > > www.isiahmeadows.com (http://www.isiahmeadows.com) > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:28 PM guest271314 <guest271...@gmail.com > > (mailto:guest271...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You have ignored the context from Jordan’s email (emphasis added): > > > > > > > > > > > > >> again, `Object.keys({ y })[0]` will give you the string `y`, and will > > > >> survive refactoring tools. you can even do `function nameof(obj) { > > > >> return Object.keys(obj)[0]; }` and then `nameof({ y })`. > > > > > > > > > No, did not _ignore_ the context of the email. > > > > > > > > > Simply have no reference point for relying on an external tool, that is, > > > essentially a text editor, to write and dynamically "refactor" code. > > > Here, the code will be tested outside of the text editor in short order > > > once composed. > > > > > > > > > Was able to rename text at Mousepad and record the entire process within > > > 20 seconds without needing to use ```nameof``` and without encountering > > > any issues such as mispelling the variable name or the text editor trying > > > to independently determine what the words am typing mean. The text editor > > > is just - a text editor. > > > > > > > > > Perhaps other JavaScript users who rely on "refactoring tools" and > > > "rename refactoring" in an IDE can relate. Not able to gather the > > > significance of ```nameof``` here - as in each case the user has to write > > > the name of the variable anyway. To each their own. > > > > > > > > > > VSCode is a popular editor that supports JavaScript *and* is a > > > > refactoring tool. Rename refactoring was the subject I was responding > > > > to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was not previously aware or did not realize that the _individual choice_ > > > to use a particular text editor was a substantial reason to ask for > > > change to the entire JavaScript language in order for specific users to > > > be able to interact with an entirely different language. > > > > > > > > > If VSCode is particularly "popular" why cannot VSCode be specified and > > > implemented by and for the users who rely on the text editor to interpret > > > what the users' intent is when writing code. > > > > > > > > > In that case ```mkvmerge``` should be specified as a JavaScript method. > > > ```webm``` is a "popular" (cannot help but to recollect "Popularity" > > > https://brendaneich.com/2008/04/popularity/) video container that is a > > > subset of the Matroska container, where if that method were specified in > > > JavaScript a user would be able to do ```mkvmerge({w: true, o: > > > "int_all.webm": i: ["int.webm", "int1.webm", ...."intN.webm"]})``` > > > instead of ```$ mkvmerge -w -o int_all.webm int.webm + int1.webm``` at > > > ```terminal```. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:29 PM Ron Buckton <ron.buck...@microsoft.com > > > (mailto:ron.buck...@microsoft.com)> wrote: > > >> > > >> > How is VSCode related to JavaScript? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> You have ignored the context from Jordan’s email (emphasis added): > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> again, `Object.keys({ y })[0]` will give you the string `y`, and will > > >> >> survive refactoring tools. you can even do `function nameof(obj) { > > >> >> return Object.keys(obj)[0]; }` and then `nameof({ y })`. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> VSCode is a popular editor that supports JavaScript *and* is a > > >> refactoring tool. Rename refactoring was the subject I was responding to. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> There are a number of reasons VSCode has implemented rename refactoring > > >> in this fashion. Not the least of which is that an editor cannot fully > > >> understand user intent. Let us say, for example, you are working with > > >> Gulp: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> const cwd /*1*/ = "."; > > >> > > >> gulp.src("*.js", { cwd /*2*/ }); > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> If you were to rename `cwd` at (1) and it *also* renamed the `cwd` > > >> property at (2), you would have introduced an error in the call because > > >> a `cwd` option to gulp has a special meaning. Since the editor doesn’t > > >> know the intent of the user may be to rename *both* symbols, it remains > > >> conservative and choses only to rename the binding and its references, > > >> producing: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> const currentDir = "."; > > >> > > >> gulp.src("*.js", { cwd: currentDir }); > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> There is also the issue of collisions: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> const foo /*1*/ = 1; > > >> > > >> f({ foo /*2*/, bar: 2 }); > > >> > > >> ``` > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> If I were to use a refactoring tool to rename `foo` at (1) to `bar`, it > > >> would *not* be safe to rename the property at (2) as well as it would > > >> introduce a semantic error that would prevent the entire script from > > >> executing. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In the context of Jordan’s email, that means that `Object.keys({ y > > >> })[0]` would *not* necessarily survive refactoring tools. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org > > >> (mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org)> On Behalf Of guest271314 > > >> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 7:40 AM > > >> Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org (mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org) > > >> Subject: Re: Re: What do you think about a C# 6 like nameof() expression > > >> for > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > In VSCode, if you rename ‘foo’ to ‘bar’ at /1/, you get this: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> How is VSCode related to JavaScript? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Is the proposal really based on creating ```nameof``` in JavaScript to > > >> workaround output at a text editor? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Why not file a bug with the individuals who write the code for VSCode or > > >> just write a text editor code from scratch which does what you want as > > >> to "refactoring". Or write the code by hand and test the code to avoid > > >> having to rely on _any_ text editor to catch your mistakes? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > es-discuss@mozilla.org (mailto: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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
