I proposed it a long time ago https://esdiscuss.org/topic/ignoring-arguments
but I agree with Tab Atkins nowadays, it would hurt readability
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:34 AM Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
