domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-08-26T18:19:41.751Z)
See also http://disnetdev.com/blog/2011/08/23/Contracts.coffee-Contracts-For-JavaScript-and-CoffeeScript/ and http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=224900 I am a fan of making it notationally easier to inject runtime validation of some sort, whether starting from guards or from either of the approaches above. From discussions at TC39, it is clear that any such proposal would be a long fight. I don't know that anyone is willing to invest the time needed to lead that fight. I know I'm not -- it is unlikely to bubble to the top of my priority queue.
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-08-26T18:18:28.286Z)
See also http://disnetdev.com/blog/2011/08/23/Contracts.coffee-Contracts-For-JavaScript-and-CoffeeScript/ and http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=224900 I am a fan of making it notationally easier to inject runtime validation of some sort, whether starting from guards or from either of the approaches above. From discussions at TC39, it is clear that any such proposal would be a long fight. I don't know that anyone is willing to invest the time needed to lead that fight. I know I'm not -- it is unlikely to bubble to the top of my priority queue. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Curtis Steckel <steckel at squareup.com> wrote:
See also http://disnetdev.com/blog/2011/08/23/Contracts.coffee-Contracts-For-JavaScript-and-CoffeeScript/ and http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=224900 I am a fan of making it notationally easier to inject runtime validation of some sort, whether starting from guards or from either of the approaches above. >From discussions at TC39, it is clear that any such proposal would be a long fight. I don't know that anyone is willing to invest the time needed to lead that fight. I know I'm not -- it is unlikely to bubble to the top of my priority queue. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Curtis Steckel <steckel at squareup.com> wrote: > I've been spending time lately writing a lot of repeated validation code > for function parameters and using popular object schema validation > libraries like Joi (https://github.com/hapijs/joi) which led me to > re-reading and thinking about strawman:guards ( > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards. > > **I'm curious what TC39 and the es-discuss' current thoughts and attitudes > towards guards is at the moment.** > > They seem to come up every once in a while in TC39 notes, but usually only > through a tangential mention followed by a mix of "that would eliminate the > possibility of guards," "guards could work," "let's talk about something > else (not guards)." > > I see that Dave Herman seems to have some opinions on guards and obviously > Waldemar has ideas (given his activity on the straw man). Anyone else? > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140819/6286d159/attachment.html>