domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-08-19T05:03:05.021Z)
OK, so it's turned out to be refutable nevertheless. It seems everyone was missing this point until this mail on the thread. >From the implementation perspective it's postponed to runtime check with stopping the destrucuring, and just throwing at first mismatch. Thanks for the I info. It's also probably worth waiting until Sep meeting for possible changes.
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > Andreas Rossberg wrote: > >> As I said in my reply, I'm totally fine with what you describe in that > >> mail. But correct me if I'm wrong, that_is_ refutable destructuring, > >> isn't it? All you seem to drop is the optional irrefutable part (the > >> '?' feature). That's why I am quite confused about Brendan's statement > >> above. > > > > Possibly I missed something (I was at the meeting on the 2nd and 3rd > days but not day 1). > > > > Allen, what does your latest draft do on > > > > var {p} = {}; > > > > Throw, or bind p to undefined? > > throws > > to bind to undefined you would say: > > var {p=undefined} = {}; > > OK, so it's turned out to be refutable nevertheless. It seems everyone was missing this point until this mail on the thread. >From the implementation perspective it's postponed to runtime check with stopping the destrucuring, and just throwing at first mismatch. Thanks for the I info. It's also probably worth waiting until Sep meeting for possible changes. Dmitry > Allen > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org <javascript:;> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130814/df260866/attachment-0001.html>