I tend to agree and one thing I like in good code is "glanceability" -
the ability to "glance" and see what's going on.
If I have
doStuff(bar,, foo,, far)
vs
doStuff(bar, foo,, far)
they don't look too different, but really they are. I normally break params
into separate lines so I wouldn't have this problem, but there's the risk
overall.
I like that a motivational factor for introducing a language feature is
"reducing the likelihood of bugs", and in my mind this one seems to very
slightly increase it
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 18:49, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:06 AM manuelbarzi <manuelba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ```
> > fun('a', 'b',, 'd',, 'f')
> > ```
>
> While this does technically match up with arrays, I find the the array
> behavior unreadable and unintuitive (especially with the exception for
> the final comma), and I'd prefer that syntax quirk not spread to other
> list-like syntax constructs.
>
> Passing `undefined` is simply and easy enough; if it's too long you
> can shave off three characters by spelling it `void 0`. Or put a `var
> _;` at the top of your script and use that.
>
> ~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
