domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-08-19T04:56:28.654Z)
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 "negate", which is the opposite of what you're claiming the semantics would be, ie. irrefutable, "impossible to omit"
No.
> or "impossible to deny [a value for this identifier binding]".
No, refutable is what Axel means. He wants matching, so a failure or refutation to cause fall through to next match. What we have in JS now with o.p and in ES6 with let {p} = o; is irrefutable -- no way to mismatch, if the property is missing you get undefined.
So ! Is not too far off the mark. Recall that the late proposal was to unify patterns used now in destructuring and later in matching by requiring ? for irrefutability and making lack of ? mean "refutable".
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote: >> 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 for refutable parts of a pattern (e.g. a prefix `!`): >> >> let { !a: foo, b: bar } = { a: 1 }; // ok: foo = 1, b = undefined >> let { !a: foo, b: bar } = { }; // exception >> >> This would have one advantage: It would be possible to bring this operator to parameter declarations (allowing one to declaratively specify a minimum arity). Then destructuring assignment and parameter handling would work very similarly. >> >> function bla(!mandatoryArg, optionalArg1, optionalArg2 = 123) { >> ... >> } > > > 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 "negate", which is the opposite of what you're claiming the semantics would be, ie. irrefutable, "impossible to omit" No. > or "impossible to deny [a value for this identifier binding]". No, refutable is what Axel means. He wants matching, so a failure or refutation to cause fall through to next match. What we have in JS now with o.p and in ES6 with let {p} = o; is irrefutable -- no way to mismatch, if the property is missing you get undefined. So ! Is not too far off the mark. Recall that the late proposal was to unify patterns used now in destructuring and later in matching by requiring ? for irrefutability and making lack of ? mean "refutable". /be > > > Rick > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130809/11701536/attachment-0001.html>