Cyril Auburtin (2016-08-12T11:11:32.000Z)
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-08-20T17:18:47.349Z)
off-topic: I received this nice mail by Bob, this person was the only one to not understand the point of this discussion, why does someone act like that? ps: He's also wrong in that function(_, _, arg) is allowed, it's not in strict mode, not for arrow functions either > Thanks for that discussion, it'll very likely never make it to the spec, Most people would read the above as signing off/out of the discussion. Would that it had been so. There is an English expression that comes to mind here: BEATING A DEAD HORSE. No one cares about the proposal. It is somewhere between irrelevant, and actively bad--primarily by harming readability. You act as if writing out an unused parameter is somehow a wanton act of waste that is eating into the world's limited supply of available variables. Minor point, but it is syntactically valid to write `function(_, _, arg)`, so you don't have to "use up another variable binding" with the second unused parameter. In case you didn't notice, the proposal is not getting any traction and will never get any traction. Move on. , Bob
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-08-12T11:13:49.629Z)
off-topic: I received this nice mail by Bob, this person was the only one to not understand the point of this discussion, why does someone act like that? > Thanks for that discussion, it'll very likely never make it to the spec, Most people would read the above as signing off/out of the discussion. Would that it had been so. There is an English expression that comes to mind here: BEATING A DEAD HORSE. No one cares about the proposal. It is somewhere between irrelevant, and actively bad--primarily by harming readability. You act as if writing out an unused parameter is somehow a wanton act of waste that is eating into the world's limited supply of available variables. Minor point, but it is syntactically valid to write `function(_, _, arg)`, so you don't have to "use up another variable binding" with the second unused parameter. In case you didn't notice, the proposal is not getting any traction and will never get any traction. Move on. , Bob
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2016-08-12T11:13:33.221Z)
off-topic: I received this nice mail by Bob, this person was the only one to not understand the point of this discussion, why does someone act like that? . ------------- > Thanks for that discussion, it'll very likely never make it to the spec, Most people would read the above as signing off/out of the discussion. Would that it had been so. There is an English expression that comes to mind here: BEATING A DEAD HORSE. No one cares about the proposal. It is somewhere between irrelevant, and actively bad--primarily by harming readability. You act as if writing out an unused parameter is somehow a wanton act of waste that is eating into the world's limited supply of available variables. Minor point, but it is syntactically valid to write `function(_, _, arg)`, so you don't have to "use up another variable binding" with the second unused parameter. In case you didn't notice, the proposal is not getting any traction and will never get any traction. Move on. , Bob