Re: Syntax operator for "default assignment if value doesn't exits"

2019-01-12 Thread Rob Ede
pretty succinct with existing de-structuring syntax: ``` const [variable = defaultValue] = [maybeUndefinedValue] const fn = ({ key = defaultValue }) => { console.log(key); } ``` > On 11 Jan 2019, at 12:00, es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org wrote: > > Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to >

Re: Syntax operator for "default assignment if value doesn't exits"

2019-01-12 Thread Sultan
>const [variable = defaultValue] = [maybeUndefinedValue] This would fail throw for variables you don't know exist i.e in the following example polyfill will throw if Symbol doesn't exist. const [Symbol = SymbolPolyfill] = [Symbol] This is specifically why convention is to use: typeof maybeUnd

Proposal: Symbol Linked to `typeof`

2019-01-12 Thread Randy Buchholz
(Hi all, new to group) Some of the Well Known Symbols are linked to standard functions - Symbol.toStringTag - A string value used for the default description of an object. Used by Object.prototype.toString(). When I have a Class instance (say, `const flow = new Flow()`, the debugger shows `fl

Re: Proposal: Symbol Linked to `typeof`

2019-01-12 Thread Isiah Meadows
Let's restrict custom `typeof` values to just symbols - objects are unnecessarily weighty, strings would break a lot of code, and other primitives are generally useless. A property sounds compelling, and I feel like I saw it suggested a while back (forget where) something similar by a TC39 person.

Re: Syntax operator for "default assignment if value doesn't exits"

2019-01-12 Thread Isiah Meadows
I'd just prefer a way to detect the value `undefined` vs no such binding. On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 10:26 Sultan wrote: > >const [variable = defaultValue] = [maybeUndefinedValue] > > This would fail throw for variables you don't know exist i.e in the > following example polyfill will throw if Symb

Re: Syntax operator for "default assignment if value doesn't exits"

2019-01-12 Thread Rob Ede
Yeah I guess there exists a use case for that method still. But I don’t feel that use case merits special syntax. > On 12 Jan 2019, at 16:25, Isiah Meadows wrote: > > I'd just prefer a way to detect the value `undefined` vs no such binding. >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 10:26 Sultan wrote: >> >co

RegExp.prototype.count

2019-01-12 Thread kai zhu
a common use-case i have is counting newlines in largish (> 200kb) embedded-js files, like this real-world example [1]. ultimately meant for line-number-preservation purposes in auto-lint/auto-prettify tasks (which have been getting slower due to complexity). would a new RegExp count-method li