cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-08-11T11:07:05.824Z)
Since functions arguments is an array under the hood, they could 'more
behave the same'
Both function arguments and arrays accept spreading: `[1, 2, ...args]` and `fn(1,2, ...args)`
a function definition like `(,i) => {}`, would be the equivalent of `var
[,i] = arguments`
an invocation `fn(,,i)` would be the equivalent of `[,,i]`
It's possible with `(...[,i]) => {}, (_,i)=>{}` like Renki said, but slightly less simply
Are there possible issues with that 'extension' of function syntax?cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-05-31T20:36:33.501Z)
Since functions arguments is an array under the hood, they could 'more
behave the same'
Both function arguments and arrays accept spreading: `[1, 2, ...args]` and `fn(1,2, ...args)`
a function definition like `(,i) => {}`, would be the equivalent of `var
[,i] = arguments`
an invocation `fn(,,i)` would be the equivalent of `[,,i]`
It's possible with `(...[,i]) => {}, (_,i)=>{}` like Renki said, but slightly less simply
Are there possible issues with that 'extension' of function syntax?
2016-05-29 21:32 GMT+02:00 Renki Ivanko <fatalis.erratum at gmail.com>:cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-05-31T20:36:11.090Z)
Since functions arguments is an array under the hood, they could 'more
behave the same'
Both function arguments and arrays accept spreading: `[1, 2, ...args]` and `fn(1,2, ...args)`
a function definition like `(,i) => {}`, would be the equivalent of `var
[,i] = arguments`
an invocation `fn(,,i)` would be the equivalent of `[,,i]`
It's possible with `(...[,i]) => {}, (_,i)=>{}` like Renki said, but
slightly less simply
Are there possible issues with that 'extension' of function syntax?
2016-05-29 21:32 GMT+02:00 Renki Ivanko <fatalis.erratum at gmail.com>:
Since functions arguments is an array under the hood, they could 'more behave the same' Both function arguments and arrays accept spreading: *[1, 2, ...args] * and *fn(1, 2, ...args)* a function definition like *(,i) => {}*, would be the equivalent of *var [,i] = arguments* an invocation *fn(,,i)* would be the equivalent of *[,,i]* It's possible with *(...[,i]) => {}, (_,i)=>{} *like Renki said, but slightly less simply Are there possible issues with that 'extension' of function syntax? 2016-05-29 21:32 GMT+02:00 Renki Ivanko <fatalis.erratum at gmail.com>: > You could stop with "rare"; having to make up unused names is an obvious > smell in comparison. > > ```js > foo(UNUSED1, UNUSED2, x) > > foo(_, __, x) > > foo(,, x) > > foo(...[,, x]) > ``` > > The latter is shorter and more explicit and would not be any more > confusing if it became common. > > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Bob Myers <rtm at gol.com> wrote: > >> Eliding array elements is not "similar" to eliding function formal >> parameters. The latter is extremely rare, hardly readable, confusing, >> bug-prone, and unnecessary because there is already a "standard way" which >> is to use any old parameter name you want: >> >> ```js >> function foo(UNUSED1, UNUSED2, x) >> ```` >> >> Most linters will not complain, or there are ways to shut them up if they >> do. >> >> If you want to throw away an argument, just throw it away. >> >> ```js >> function skipFirstParam(fn) { return ((first, ...args) => fn(...args)); } >> >> `[1,2,3,4].map(skipFirstParam(i => i)); >> >> ``` >> >> Or use Renki's solution. >> >> Bob >> >> >> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Cyril Auburtin <cyril.auburtin at gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> Similarly to: >>> >>> `var [,x,,y] = [1,2,3,4,5,6];` >>> >>> I think it could be interesting to let a field empty in function >>> arguments >>> >>> `[1,2,3,4].map( (,i) => i )`, `Array.from({length:10}, (,i) => i )` >>> >>> `function test(a,,b) { }` >>> >>> (but that would alter the current parsing, that doesn't allow it) >>> >>> Currently I often use `_` as a way to mark ignored fields, but when >>> there are more than 1 you need another identifier. A standard way would be >>> interesting rather >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss at mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss at mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160529/488ffa04/attachment.html>