Users: Give us this shitty syntax, the current way to do this is terrible. Us: We can't, that would potentially conflict with future ECMAScript proposals. Users: Then give us syntax that's so shitty that TC39 would never ever want to use it. ????????
-
Show this thread
-
*later* Users: Why did you pick this shitty syntax it's so bad!!! TC39: Why should we be limited from using THIS shitty syntax just because TYPESCRIPT is already using it???
6 replies 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
Daniel Rosenwasser Retweeted 109th
Since people are running wild with what I'm referring tohttps://twitter.com/IllusionMH/status/1088549292019777536 …
Daniel Rosenwasser added,
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @drosenwasser
Not sure if you've seenhttps://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/235 …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @sebmck @drosenwasser
Wow that issue will be 4 years old in a few days...
1:51 PM - 24 Jan 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
he/him 