By the way, the VS Code plugin I use is [Comment tagged templates](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=bierner.comment-tagged-templates). Works great, allows any extension in the comment, and it will highlight as long as you have that syntax installed separately.
I got tired of pasting my identity tag everywhere. #!/JoePea On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:25 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > I mean, it would be only a parse time cost if the identity tag is used like > > ```js > String.tag`...anything...` > ``` > > assuming it is not monkey-patchable (readonly). But maybe if it is > patchable then all bets are off, and it has a runtime cost. > > #!/JoePea > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps a built-in identity tag would be only a parse-time performance cost. > > #!/JoePea > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't know what you mean about the raw stuff, but using `/*css*/` > > > works perfectly fine in VS Code with a plugin. There's no reason > > > intellisense can't work inside the commented string. If you meant > > > about completing the `css` part, if you accidentally write `/*ccs*/` > > > then the colors won't look right. Missing auto-completion inside the > > > little comment isn't that bad. > > > > > > I prefer using the comment because using an identity tag just for > > > syntax feels like I'm adding a performance cost for no reason related > > > to my runtime code. > > > > > > But perhaps a built-in identity tag would be fast. > > > > > > #!/JoePea > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:02 AM Andrea Giammarchi > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think it doesn't matter where it lands, and I've overlooked at the > > > > already available String.raw. > > > > > > > > My idea is to have it "no matter where, or how named" as it's the > > > > functionality I am after, not the name. > > > > > > > > String.plain sounds great, but since template literals tag functions > > > > are named "template literals tag functions", I've thought String.tag > > > > would implicitly describe the intent. > > > > > > > > And then again, I don't care about the name, "we" (developers that use > > > > template literals a lot) would love it no matter how it's called ;-) > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:16 PM Bergi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Andrea, > > > >> > > > >> my 5ct: Putting the static function on the `Function` object doesn't > > > >> make any sense to me. Using `String.tag` seems like much more sensible > > > >> choice. Or, how about `String.plain`, in contrast to `String.raw`? > > > >> > > > >> I can see the use case, altough I'd really prefer tooling to become > > > >> more > > > >> intelligent in that regard. > > > >> > > > >> best, > > > >> Bergi > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> es-discuss mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
