There's a misunderstanding about stagnating proposals in TC39, that it's because TC39 dislikes a proposal. It's often not the proposal itself but the work of the champion. E.g. not enough research, poor presentation, lack of arguments or it's a topic which requires extra effort.
I don't mean TS and Flow have to agree on the exact syntax, but you can't actually reserve syntax without defining it in the grammar ("the stuff after the colon" doesn't tell you where to stop).
-
-
someFunc(): T => U { } call(T => U) call((i: T => U) => i) All valid TS, but not trivial to reserve type syntax in those positions (especially with recursive type definitions).
-
Whew. I guess I have nothing to worry about for now if we'll be waiting on agreement between tc39, Flow & TS camps. Don't mind me, I'll show myself out... Back to writing
#ReasonML
pic.twitter.com/oRr6TzwZv4 - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would reserving grammar for alternative syntax persuade type checkers to adopt it at least as an option ?
-
MooTools should implement it...
Then we won't have to worry about it ever being added to #javascript#smooshgate#SorryNotSorry#toosoon - i know
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
