guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:53:59.513Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have to_ use some form of an "IDE" (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
>
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective describing the code. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance - to them individually. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time), which means that it should not matter _how_ (in code) output is derived as long as the output meets the requirement.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:42:52.745Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have to_ use some form of an "IDE" (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
>
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective describing the code. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance - to them individually. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:41:34.016Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have to_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
>
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective describing the code. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance - to them individually. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:40:35.373Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have to_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective describing the code. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance - to them individually. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:39:17.561Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have to_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:37:34.995Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code by the other human, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:36:51.519Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle (the same circle with "x" will be shown on DevTools panel with ```1``` indicating ```1 error``` which can be clicked and will "navigate" DevTools to the line where the error occurs) and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:33:25.630Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ (which is ultimately an individual _choice_) to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:32:09.299Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Some other human has to concur with such a description in order for that term to have any relevance. If the term is not adopted as meaningful within the scope of the code, the term can be omitted as irrelevant. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:30:34.689Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.
--
> Case 2. Accessing property extended info e.g.
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, 'property1');```
>
> vs
>
> ```const descriptor1 = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object1, nameof object1.property1);```
> 2nd variant (proposed) has more chances not to be broken during refactoring (robustness).
Under what circumstances will the 1st example be "broken"?
Again, the term "robustness" might be significant to some, though from perspective here has no clear meaning in code other than being an adjective. The human applies the descriptor to the code. Objectively the only observable traits of code are input and output (and time - if all tests are done at the same machine; or all hardware is listed at the various machines where code is tested as to time).guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:24:11.400Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a simple text editor (GUI or CLI) and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:23:40.392Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the red circle with the "x" in the middle will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:22:13.521Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle and hovering over the highlighted line will provide detail of the error message
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:21:05.213Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of an "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code - they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:20:13.713Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of a dynamic "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code, they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```
To run the code press ```Ctrl+Enter```.guest271314 at gmail.com (2019-06-14T18:19:19.638Z)
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective.
"Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"?
If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand
property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string,
then ```nameof``` would be less code.
> You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools).
The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE?
For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use
an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not
able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using
```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or
```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in
different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results.
If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of a dynamic "IDE" to
compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code, they can
open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` =>
```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where
```
const n = 123;
const n = 456;
```
will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code -
the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle
```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared````
To run the code press ```ctrl+enter```.
Terms such as "more robust", "Less fragile." , "Less mess." are subjective. "Fragile" how? What is meant by "mess"? If the proposal is that ```nameof``` is briefer than using shorthand property names or computed property names to get an identifier as a string, then ```nameof``` would be less code. > You can rename field/property without fear you break something (using IDE refactoring tools). The use case appears to be within the context of an IDE? For users that roll their own code by hand at a text editor and do not use an IDE for composing code (or relying on an IDE for logging errors), am not able to discern how ```nameof``` is different than using ```Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(other).name.value``` or ```Object.keys({userName})[0]```. The actual code will need to be tested in different browsers anyway before deployment to get the actual results. If a user has decided they _have_ to use some form of a dynamic "IDE" to compose code and log errors - while they are writing the code, they can open DevTools at Chromium or Chrome then select ```Sources``` => ```Snippets``` => ```New snippet```, where ``` const n = 123; const n = 456; ``` will highlight the line where the error occurs - during writing the code - the as a red circle with a transparent "x" in the middle ```Uncaught SyntaxError: Identifier 'n' has already been declared```` To run the code press ```ctrl+enter```. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:48 PM Stas Berkov <stas.berkov at gmail.com> wrote: > Less fragile. Less mess. You can rename field/property without fear you > break something (using IDE refactoring tools). > With high probablity you will break something when you refactor and have > fields hardcoded as strings. > Someone can object that you can rename strings as well. > Issue here that you can ocassionally change non-related strings that > should not be changed even they match or have matching substring. > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 9:38 PM guest271314 <guest271314 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is Case 1 equivalent to a briefer version of >> >> ``` >> if (userName == undefined) { >> throw new Error(`Argument cannot be null: >> ${Object.keys({userName})[0]}`); >> } >> ``` >> >> ? >> >> If not, how is ```nameof``` different? >> >> What is the difference between the use of ```message.hasOwnProperty(property)``` >> and ```nameof msg.expiration_utc_time```? >> >> > You get more robust code. >> >> How is "robust" objectively determined? >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:21 PM Stas Berkov <stas.berkov at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> ES can befit from `nameof` feature the same way as TS. There is no TS >>> specific in it. >>> It was ask to introduce in TS as a workaround since TS is considered as >>> extention of ES. >>> >>> Case 1. Function guard. >>> ``` >>> function func1(param1, param2, param3, userName, param4, param5) { >>> if (userName == undefined) { >>> throw new ArgumentNullError(nameof userName); // >>> `ArgumentNullError` is a custom error, derived from `Error`, composes error >>> message like "Argument cannot be null: userName". >>> } >>> } >>> ``` >>> >>> Case 2. Access extended information an object property. >>> Assume a function >>> ``` >>> function protoPropertyIsSet(message, property) { >>> return message != null && message.hasOwnProperty(property); >>> } >>> ``` >>> Then in code you use it as `if (protoPropertyIsSet(msg, >>> "expiration_utc_time")) {... }`. >>> Having `nameof` would allow you to do that `if (protoPropertyIsSet(msg, >>> nameof msg.expiration_utc_time)) {... }`. >>> You get more robust code. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:46 PM Augusto Moura <augusto.borgesm at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you list the benefits of having this operators? Maybe with example >>>> use cases >>>> >>>> If I understand it correctly, the operator fits better in compiled >>>> (and typed) languages, most of the use cases don't apply to dynamic >>>> Javascript >>>> The only legit use case I can think of is helping refactor tools to >>>> rename properties (but even mismatch errors between strings and >>>> properties names can be caught in compile time using modern >>>> Typescript) >>>> >>>> Em sex, 14 de jun de 2019 às 10:05, Stas Berkov >>>> <stas.berkov at gmail.com> escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Can we revisit this issue? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > In C# there is `nameof`, in Swift you can do the same by calling >>>> > >>>> > ``` >>>> > >>>> > let keyPath = \Person.mother.firstName >>>> > >>>> > NSPredicate(format: "%K == %@", keyPath, "Andrew") >>>> > >>>> > ``` >>>> > >>>> > Let's introduce `nameof` in ES, please. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Devs from TypeScript don't want to introduce this feature in >>>> TypeScript unless it is available in ES ( >>>> https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/1579 ) >>>> > >>>> > This feature is eagarly being asked by TypeScript community. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > I understand there are couple issues related to `nameof` feature in >>>> ES. They are: minification and what to do if user already has `nameof` >>>> function. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Minification. >>>> > >>>> > 1. If your code to be minimized be prepared that variable names will >>>> also change. >>>> > >>>> > 2. (just a possibility) Minimizer can have option to replace >>>> `nameof(someVar)` with result of `nameof` function. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What if user already has `nameof` function. >>>> > >>>> > 1. To maintain status quo we can user `nameof` function having >>>> priority over newly introduced language feature. >>>> > >>>> > 2. OR we can use `typeof` syntax, e.g. `nameof msg.userName` (// >>>> returns "userName" string) >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > es-discuss mailing list >>>> > es-discuss at mozilla.org >>>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Atenciosamente, >>>> >>>> Augusto Borges de Moura >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20190614/3ff53ef2/attachment-0001.html>