On 08/08/2013, at 15:55, David Bruant wrote:
This is not a Trying to protect us from ourselves situation. This is a
browser trying to protect users from any sort of abuse situation. For while
loops, they implemented the script takes too long dialog. For mistakenly
infinitely nested too
For promises using microtasks, one possibility I've been experimenting with in
my polyfill is a Promise.yield() method that returns a Promise that resolves
after the next time the UI thread gets a chance to drain its event queue
(either through requestAnimationFrame or setTimeout).
While it
AFAICT, there is no current consensus on whether destructuring assignment is
refutable by default or not:
https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md#44-consider-deferring-es6-refutable-matching
Could we make destructuring assignment fail soft and introduce a marker
Woah. I was sad about the loss of refutable destructuring, i.e. I would rather
have had it by default, but this idea is a pretty brilliant way to make
lemonade out of lemons. I would *love* a way to declaratively specify required
parameters.
___
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
AFAICT, there is no current consensus on whether destructuring assignment
is refutable by default or not:
While I agree this is interesting and should be explored further, I reject
the proposal to add more meaning to the ! character. Given this proposal,
! would sometimes mean not or negate (as in it's current form) and
sometimes mean a required thing. Meanwhile, refute is a synonym for
On 8/9/2013 3:36 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
let { +a: foo, b: bar } = { a: 1 }; // foo = 1, b = undefined
let { +a: foo, b: bar } = { }; // exception
function bla(+mandatoryArg, optionalArg1, optionalArg2 = 123) {
...
}
I presume these would also be valid, and do
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
AFAICT, there is no current consensus on whether destructuring assignment is
refutable by default or not:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
Woah. I was sad about the loss of refutable destructuring, i.e. I would
rather have had it by default, but this idea is a pretty brilliant way to
make lemonade out of lemons. I would *love* a way to declaratively specify
required
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
AFAICT, there is no current consensus on whether destructuring assignment
On 8/9/2013 4:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
const MUST = () = {throw TypeError(Missing required parameter};
function foo (a=MUST(), b, c) {...}
But that doesn't work for:
```js
function foo({ a } = { a: MUST() }){}
foo({}); // doesn't throw
function bar({ +a }){}
bar({}); // would throw
On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 8/9/2013 4:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
const MUST = () = {throw TypeError(Missing required parameter};
function foo (a=MUST(), b, c) {...}
But that doesn't work for:
```js
function foo({ a } = { a: MUST() }){}
this would
On Aug 9, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
On 8/9/2013 4:03 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
const MUST = () = {throw TypeError(Missing required parameter};
function foo (a=MUST(), b, c) {...}
But that doesn't work for:
On 8/9/2013 5:45 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
and if we make U+2639 a special token that evaluated to throw TypeError we
could say
function foo( {a=☹ }) {}
This would be awesome.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Rick Waldron wrote:
My argument was specifically about the current meaning of the ascii
exclamation ! and that assigning it an additional context-based
meaning that's quite the opposite of the current unary operator meaning,
Ok, and I'm with you (recall Mark M. wants ! as
15 matches
Mail list logo
