@Michael Luder-Rosefield


```js

this += { par1, par2, par3 }
```

I do love it!!!

Il giorno sab 1 dic 2018 alle ore 12:08 Michael Luder-Rosefield <
rosyatrandom at gmail.com> ha scritto:

> > ```js
> this.{} = {par1, par2, par3};
> ```
>
> Of course, that could be expressed as ```this = { ...this, par1, par2,
> par3 }```, but that's still a bit verbose.
>
> I already know this is going to get dismissed for changing the way the `+`
> operator works, but it strikes me that a better way of expressing that
> might be ```this += { par1, par2, par3 }```.
>
> That naturally leads to having ```obj1 + obj2 === Object.assign(obj1,
> obj2)``` and ```arr1 + arr2 === (arr1 = [ ...arr1, ...arr2 ])```, which
> would be good except for the whole breaking-change thing.
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 22:52 Simo Costa <andrysimo1997 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you T.J. Crowder for giving me your opinion on this proposal.
>> I didn't know about the Bob Myers' for pick notation and it isn't bad.
>>
>> I still prefer something like that:
>> ```js
>> constructor(this.{par1, par2, par3}) {
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> but this doesn't sound bad to me:
>>
>> ```js
>> constructor(par1, par2, par3) {
>>     this.{} = {par1, par2, par3};
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> There is still a repetition, but it is a a step forward.
>>
>> Il giorno gio 29 nov 2018 alle ore 12:28 T.J. Crowder <
>> tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> ha scritto:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:33 PM Simo Costa
>>> <andrysimo1997 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > So my proposal is to avoid those repetitions...
>>>
>>> I'm a bit surprised to find that no one's mentioned Bob Myers'
>>> [proposal][1] for pick notation yet, which would readily address this
>>> requirement *and* various other requirements beyond initializing
>>> newly-constructed objects.
>>>
>>> Using Bob's current draft syntax, Simo's example would be:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> constructor(par1, par2, par3) {
>>>     this.{par1, par2, par3} = {par1, par2, par3};
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> or if the constructor accepts an object:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> constructor(options) {
>>>     this.{par1, par2, par3} = options;
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> But I think we can go further if we tweak the syntax a bit. Perhaps:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> constructor(par1, par2, par3) {
>>>     this.{} = {par1, par2, par3};
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> ...where the property names are inferred from the properties on the
>>> right-hand side. That would be functionally equivalent to:
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> constructor(par1, par2, par3) {
>>>     Object.assign(this, {par1, par2, par3});
>>> }
>>> ```
>>>
>>> ...but since the syntax is clear about the intent, when an object
>>> initializer (rather than just object reference) is used on the right-hand
>>> side it's an optimization target if a constructor is "hot" enough to
>>> justify it (e.g., an engine could optimize it into individual assignments).
>>>
>>> For me, that would be a great, clear, concise feature, and hits the
>>> other use cases Bob mentions in his proposal. I like that I'm still in
>>> control of what parameters get assigned as properties (which I think has
>>> been true of all of the suggestsions in this thread).
>>>
>>> -- T.J. Crowder
>>>
>>> [1]: https://github.com/rtm/js-pick-notation
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181201/1f1ff997/attachment.html>

@Michael Luder-Rosefield


```js
this += { par1, par2, par3 }
```

I do love it!!!

But, for now, reassigning to `this` is forbidden by javascript.

@Michael Luder-Rosefield


```js
this += { par1, par2, par3 }
```

I do love it!!!

BUt, for now, reassigning to `this` is forbidden by javascript.