Destructuring, Defaults, Covering
# Erik Arvidsson (13 years ago)
Yes, this looks like the same issue.
Yes, this looks like the same issue.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's an open draft issue here:
>
> https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653
>
> which points out a problem with allowing destructuring assignment forms
> like:
>
> ({ x = "initializer" } = { }); // Identifier followed by an initializer,
> not covered by object literal
>
> but is there not also an issue for the same syntax in destructuring binding
> patterns with respect to arrow function parameter lists?
>
> ({ x = "initializer" }) => {}; // Again, not covered by object literal
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
--
erik
There's an open draft issue here:
ecmascript#653
which points out a problem with allowing destructuring assignment forms like:
initializer, not covered by object literal
but is there not also an issue for the same syntax in destructuring binding patterns with respect to arrow function parameter lists?
There's an open draft issue here: https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=653 which points out a problem with allowing destructuring assignment forms like: ({ x = "initializer" } = { }); // Identifier followed by an initializer, not covered by object literal but is there not also an issue for the same syntax in destructuring binding patterns with respect to arrow function parameter lists? ({ x = "initializer" }) => {}; // Again, not covered by object literal Thanks! Kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120924/d5aa07e8/attachment.html>