On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
This is again if we need strict matching. As long as JS is assignment-base
language with mutable state and that foo.nonExisting === undefined today, I
think the destructuring w/o throwing should be the main course. And if you
want the strict match, it can be an extension. If we need it. If we have
use-cases. This match(...) is just an idea, of course it should be worked
on.

Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130816/58e4ff6c/attachment.html>

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmmm... Let me rephrase.  It would be awkward and confusing to have
> divergent semantics for the same pattern syntax in destructuring and
> matching.

This is again if we need strict matching. As long as JS is assignment-base
language with mutable state and that foo.nonExisting === undefined today, I
think the destructuring w/o throwing should be the main course. And if you
want the strict match, it can be an extension. If we need it. If we have
use-cases. This match(...) is just an idea, of course it should be worked
on.