d at domenic.me (2015-05-11T16:40:14.537Z)
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Elie Rotenberg <elie at rotenberg.io> wrote: > Using array destructuring assignment and constraining linting rules, I often > find myself having to chose names for bindings I don't intent on using. I > usually end up using a conventional ignore name, such as _ignore, which I > "void" to shut up the linter without adding exceptions. Besides the linting > problem (which can be solved by refining the linting rules), it's still a > conceptually useless binding. Honestly, this should probably be answered by fixing the linter, so it doesn't give linting errors when a variable named `_` is unused. (In fact, it should probably do the opposite, and give a lint error when `_` *is* used. This'll make users of underscore or lo-dash unhappy, though. ^_^)
d at domenic.me (2015-05-11T16:40:05.124Z)
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Elie Rotenberg <elie at rotenberg.io> wrote: > Using array destructuring assignment and constraining linting rules, I often > find myself having to chose names for bindings I don't intent on using. I > usually end up using a conventional ignore name, such as _ignore, which I > "void" to shut up the linter without adding exceptions. Besides the linting > problem (which can be solved by refining the linting rules), it's still a > conceptually useless binding. Honestly, this should probably be answered by fixing the linter, so it doesn't give linting errors when a variable named "_" is unused. (In fact, it should probably do the opposite, and give a lint error when _ *is* used. This'll make users of underscore or lo-dash unhappy, though. ^_^)
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Elie Rotenberg <elie at rotenberg.io> wrote: > Using array destructuring assignment and constraining linting rules, I often > find myself having to chose names for bindings I don't intent on using. I > usually end up using a conventional ignore name, such as _ignore, which I > "void" to shut up the linter without adding exceptions. Besides the linting > problem (which can be solved by refining the linting rules), it's still a > conceptually useless binding. > > Here's a contrived example: > > const lastOfThree = ([first, second, third]) => third; > > Which I usually end up rewriting: > > const lastOfThree = ([_ignore1, _ignore2, third]) => { > void _ignore1; > void _ignore2; > return third; > } Honestly, this should probably be answered by fixing the linter, so it doesn't give linting errors when a variable named "_" is unused. (In fact, it should probably do the opposite, and give a lint error when _ *is* used. This'll make users of underscore or lo-dash unhappy, though. ^_^) ~TJ