domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-08-19T05:06:04.931Z)
>> Do you not think that it would be awkward to have the exact same pattern >> syntax for these two cases (matching and destructuring), but with different >> semantics? > > Yes, I don't think so. Hmmm... Let me rephrase. It would be awkward and confusing to have divergent semantics for the same pattern syntax in destructuring and matching. : )
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-08-19T05:05:57.373Z)
>> Do you not think that it would be awkward to have the exact same pattern >> syntax for these two cases (matching and destructuring), but with different >> semantics? >> >> > Yes, I don't think so. Hmmm... Let me rephrase. It would be awkward and confusing to have divergent semantics for the same pattern syntax in destructuring and matching. : )
> Do you not think that it would be awkward to have the exact same pattern >> syntax for these two cases (matching and destructuring), but with different >> semantics? >> >> > Yes, I don't think so. > Hmmm... Let me rephrase. It would be awkward and confusing to have divergent semantics for the same pattern syntax in destructuring and matching. : ) { Kevin } -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130816/21192e2f/attachment.html>