Ok, thanks, that clarifies it.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum wrote:
>
> I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify.
>
> I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I di
On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:05 PM, John Lenz wrote:
> I thought at one time a naming convention was proposed: x.m.js for es6
> modules. But I haven't seen any traction for it.
>
>
various file extension conventions have been floated, but nothing seems to have
caught on.
Allen
__
On Jul 12, 2015, at 1:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum wrote:
> I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify.
>
> I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I did not intend
> to start a discussion about named parameters' merits vs passing an object
> lit
I thought at one time a naming convention was proposed: x.m.js for es6
modules. But I haven't seen any traction for it.
On Jul 6, 2015 12:08 PM, "Allen Wirfs-Brock" wrote:
>
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32 AM, John Barton wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
>
>> To
Thanks for the clarification.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Luke Scott wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum
> wrote:
>
> I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to
> clarify.
>
> I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I di
On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Benjamin Gruenbaum
mailto:benjami...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify.
I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I did not intend to
start a discussion about named parameters' merits vs p
I think my original post might have been confusing so allow me to clarify.
I'm not suggesting to add named parameters to the language, I did not
intend to start a discussion about named parameters' merits vs passing an
object literal (I thing Axel had a blog about that a while ago).
What I'm inte
So you propose don't compress arguments of all functions? :)
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
It won't break if Gary Guo's idea is used, i.e. use a colon instead of an
equal.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Denis Pushkarev
wrote:
> 1. It would break backwards compatibility:
>
> ```js
> var bar = 1;
> if(baz(bar))foo(bar = 5);
> console.log(bar); // 5 in some cases
> ```
>
> 2. Code wit
(A minifier that breaks your code is a broken minifier and should
never be a valid argument for these cases)
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Denis Pushkarev wrote:
> 1. It would break backwards compatibility:
>
> ```js
> var bar = 1;
> if(baz(bar))foo(bar = 5);
> console.log(bar); // 5 in some
1. It would break backwards compatibility:
```js
var bar = 1;
if(baz(bar))foo(bar = 5);
console.log(bar); // 5 in some cases
```
2. Code with this feature will be broken after minification.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail
No, I didn't mean simulating them via an object literal. I mean actual
named parameters like in Python or C# for example.
Are there any plans to peruse that and if so what is the status?
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Bucaran wrote:
> What about:
>
> foo({ bar: 5 })
>
> funct
If we really need this, you may want to use colon to replace the assignment
operator in your example. foo(bar: 5) ___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
This is not possible as it contracts with existing semantics. Wrap it with a
function instead.
From: jbuca...@me.com
Subject: Allow `try…catch` blocks to return a value.
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 06:53:52 +0900
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Allow `try…catch` blocks to return a value.Sometimes I wrap a
14 matches
Mail list logo
