As-patterns

[luciferous]

This has been discussed previously on es-discuss.1 But that was some years ago, and from what I gathered, the consensus was that it's clearly useful, but not useful enough to be included at that point in time. I'm wondering if it's worth revisiting its usefulness again now.

The basic idea is to allow binding a name to the whole value being destructured, .e.g:

var z@{x,y} = {x: 1, y: 2};
assertEquals(1, x);
assertEquals(2, y);
assertDeepEquals({x:1, y:2}, z);

We can refer to specifications of other languages (e.g. Haskell Report 2010) for more formal semantics if that is useful in guiding the discussion.

[domenic]

Closing per https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#feature-requests

[domenic]

Closing per https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#feature-requests

[luciferous]

Not the friendliest way to have communicated that, but ok.

[luciferous]

Not the friendliest way to have communicated that, but ok.

[michaelficarra]

@luciferous It's pretty rude to open an issue without reading the contribution guide and then complain that a contributor telling you that you've violated the contribution guidelines was not friendly enough. If you're so sensitive that every comment must be guarded with pleasantries in order to avoid hurting your feelings, you might not want to participate in professional discourse.

[michaelficarra]

@luciferous It's pretty rude to open an issue without reading the contribution guide and then complain that a contributor telling you that you've violated the contribution guidelines was not friendly enough. If you're so sensitive that every comment must be guarded with pleasantries in order to avoid hurting your feelings, you might not want to participate in professional discourse.

[luciferous]

Edit: I deleted my comment, because I'm realizing I don't have energy to continue this discussion in that direction. I'll have a read of spec.html and issue a PR. Thanks.

[luciferous]

Edit: I deleted my comment, because I'm realizing I don't have energy to continue this discussion in that direction. I'll have a read of spec.html and issue a PR. Thanks.

[domenic]

@luciferous please read https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#feature-requests. Submitting a pull request is not an acceptable way to propose a feature.

[domenic]

@luciferous please read https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#feature-requests. Submitting a pull request is not an acceptable way to propose a feature.

[luciferous]

@domenic Thanks. It was previously discussed on es-discuss, I linked to this up top. Should I just create a new post on that mailing list, with essentially the same message?

[luciferous]

@domenic Thanks. It was previously discussed on es-discuss, I linked to this up top. Should I just create a new post on that mailing list, with essentially the same message?

[domenic]

@luciferous generally if no TC39 member on the mailing list has decided the original message was compelling enough to take it on as a proposal, that means the idea has no support and will not become a proposal. Bumping the message does not really increase your chances.

A pull request to the spec is the last stage of the process, after you have a champion and they have turned it into a proposal and advanced it to stage 4 of the TC39 process. But if you can't get to stage 0, there's no point.

[domenic]

@luciferous generally if no TC39 member on the mailing list has decided the original message was compelling enough to take it on as a proposal, that means the idea has no support and will not become a proposal. Bumping the message does not really increase your chances.

A pull request to the spec is the last stage of the process, after you have a champion and they have turned it into a proposal and advanced it to stage 4 of the TC39 process. But if you can't get to stage 0, there's no point.

[domenic]

That said, I now realize the message you linked is several years old. Maybe bumping it is OK to see if new committee members who have joined since then have different opinions.

[domenic]

That said, I now realize the message you linked is several years old. Maybe bumping it is OK to see if new committee members who have joined since then have different opinions.

[bterlson]

Given that the last post on es-discuss was from 2012, it seems reasonable to bump it again I think.

[bterlson]

Given that the last post on es-discuss was from 2012, it seems reasonable to bump it again I think.

[luciferous]

Yep, I can see how my creating an issue can be interpreted as subverting the process. But that assumes this process is clear to newcomers. Now, it's clear and I'll jump back to es-discuss and start form there. Thanks for clarifying, @domenic @bterlson.

[luciferous]

Yep, I can see how my creating an issue can be interpreted as subverting the process. But that assumes this process is clear to newcomers. Now, it's clear and I'll jump back to es-discuss and start form there. Thanks for clarifying, @domenic @bterlson.