Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upTerser arrow function + destructuring syntax - thoughts? #653
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
ljharb
Aug 6, 2016
Member
How can a parser/engine know that those aren't an object literal, a block, or an array literal, without having to backtrack when it finds the "=>"?
|
How can a parser/engine know that those aren't an object literal, a block, or an array literal, without having to backtrack when it finds the "=>"? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
bcherny
commented
Aug 6, 2016
|
How does it know with the current syntax? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
michaelficarra
Aug 6, 2016
Member
and I'm not sure this is the right place to do it
It is not the right place. From CONTRIBUTING.md:
Feature Requests
Feature requests for future versions of ECMAScript should not be made in this repository. To make a feature request, post to the es-discuss mailing list. Your goal will be to convince others that your proposal is a useful addition to the language and recruit TC39 members to help turn your request into a proposal and shepherd it into the language.
It is not the right place. From CONTRIBUTING.md:
|
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
bcherny
commented
Aug 7, 2016
|
@michaelficarra - Got it, will post on es-discuss instead. |
bcherny commentedAug 6, 2016
•
edited
This is my first time posting here, and I'm not sure this is the right place to do it, but I was wondering what you guys think of making parens around destructured arrow function parameters optional. If this gets positive feedback, I can write up a proposal: