Destructuring Assignment spec status
# Dmitry Soshnikov (12 years ago)
Actually, I found some notes ( rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md, thanks).
The consensus is there only to not ToObject(RHS). Seems refutable/irrefutable feature still is not agreed?
Actually, I found some notes ( https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md, thanks). The consensus is there only to not ToObject(RHS). Seems refutable/irrefutable feature still is not agreed? Dmitry On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov <dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com > wrote: > Hi, > > Destructuring assignment (aka "non-strict pattern matching") seems was in > the draft spec for a while. > > I'm currently implementing the feature in our local code transforms > pipeline, and it seemed to me that there is/was already a pretty stable > agreement on it. > > Currently what I see is: irrefutable match with default values (plus, > spread/rest for arrays). However, I was informed that on the last meeting > the topic was raised again and the refutable/irrefutable aspects where > brought to the discussion again. > > (it seems like this "refutable/irrefutable" thing was here for couple of > years already) > > I wanted to clarify the current status, how active the topic is, was the > consensus achieved before, and how likely the current semantics will be > changed? > > Thanks, > Dmitry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130802/ef548fca/attachment.html>
# Allen Wirfs-Brock (12 years ago)
that's pretty much it. The RHS ToObjects need to be removed. Other than that and bugs fixes, I think the spec. as it appears in the Rev16 draft is pretty solid. Please do implement and report any apparent spec bugs.
On Aug 2, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote: > Actually, I found some notes (https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md, thanks). > > The consensus is there only to not ToObject(RHS). Seems refutable/irrefutable feature still is not agreed? > > Dmitry > that's pretty much it. The RHS ToObjects need to be removed. Other than that and bugs fixes, I think the spec. as it appears in the Rev16 draft is pretty solid. Please do implement and report any apparent spec bugs. Allen > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov <dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Destructuring assignment (aka "non-strict pattern matching") seems was in the draft spec for a while. > > I'm currently implementing the feature in our local code transforms pipeline, and it seemed to me that there is/was already a pretty stable agreement on it. > > Currently what I see is: irrefutable match with default values (plus, spread/rest for arrays). However, I was informed that on the last meeting the topic was raised again and the refutable/irrefutable aspects where brought to the discussion again. > > (it seems like this "refutable/irrefutable" thing was here for couple of years already) > > I wanted to clarify the current status, how active the topic is, was the consensus achieved before, and how likely the current semantics will be changed? > > Thanks, > Dmitry > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130802/b0abdc0e/attachment-0001.html>
# Dmitry Soshnikov (12 years ago)
OK, cool, thanks for the info, Allen.
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote: > > Actually, I found some notes ( > https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-07/july-23.md, > thanks). > > The consensus is there only to not ToObject(RHS). Seems > refutable/irrefutable feature still is not agreed? > > Dmitry > > > that's pretty much it. The RHS ToObjects need to be removed. Other than > that and bugs fixes, I think the spec. as it appears in the Rev16 draft is > pretty solid. Please do implement and report any apparent spec bugs. > > > OK, cool, thanks for the info, Allen. Dmitry. > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < > dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Destructuring assignment (aka "non-strict pattern matching") seems was in >> the draft spec for a while. >> >> I'm currently implementing the feature in our local code transforms >> pipeline, and it seemed to me that there is/was already a pretty stable >> agreement on it. >> >> Currently what I see is: irrefutable match with default values (plus, >> spread/rest for arrays). However, I was informed that on the last meeting >> the topic was raised again and the refutable/irrefutable aspects where >> brought to the discussion again. >> >> (it seems like this "refutable/irrefutable" thing was here for couple of >> years already) >> >> I wanted to clarify the current status, how active the topic is, was the >> consensus achieved before, and how likely the current semantics will be >> changed? >> >> Thanks, >> Dmitry >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20130802/a6174e95/attachment.html>
Destructuring assignment (aka "non-strict pattern matching") seems was in the draft spec for a while.
I'm currently implementing the feature in our local code transforms pipeline, and it seemed to me that there is/was already a pretty stable agreement on it.
Currently what I see is: irrefutable match with default values (plus, spread/rest for arrays). However, I was informed that on the last meeting the topic was raised again and the refutable/irrefutable aspects where brought to the discussion again.
(it seems like this "refutable/irrefutable" thing was here for couple of years already)
I wanted to clarify the current status, how active the topic is, was the consensus achieved before, and how likely the current semantics will be changed?