const field arguments are persuasive to me. I regret reserving `:`
-
-
Replying to @wycats @lbljeffmo and
const and type arguments are twins, but integrity defense against getter attack prevails first.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @wycats and
Anyway, :T future-proofing secondary to : def beating = set here. Now, to 2ndary arg: u want :: ?!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @lbljeffmo and
Yehuda Katz 🥨 Retweeted Yehuda Katz 🥨
I don't want `::`. But https://twitter.com/wycats/status/779331017865703424 … is a massive fail. Almost fatal.
Yehuda Katz 🥨 added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @lbljeffmo and
to explain that, you mean function declaration w/ destructuring param needs {x}:{x:string} in TS.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @lbljeffmo and
yes. As a TS user, this has bitten me many many times.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats
we get plenty of reports on this in Flow too. We came up with an inline syntax but ppl would still make the mistake
@BrendanEich2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lbljeffmo @BrendanEich
is there any appetite to revisit the syntax assuming we can find something legitimately better?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
It might be painful to change, but always open to exploration
@BrendanEich1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lbljeffmo @wycats
Well to be clear: You're talking about destructuring type syntax?
@BrendanEich1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm talking about a type ascription syntax that could work in all positions.
-
-
TS had to find a solution for <> cast due to JSX. Transition and opt-in are possible.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.