Scotty Jamison
Scotty Jamison
@bakkot - I also find the original `expr {}` construct a little weird for that reason. There are other ways to formulate the syntax (which were discussed in the TC39...
I went ahead and opened a separate issue over [here](https://github.com/Kingwl/proposal-string-trim-characters/issues/3) to discuss how we should handle multi-characters strings, so that we can keep this issue related to providing use cases.
That would be great! Thank you
Wouldn't this mean we're basically exporting a list of all the functions already available on the prototype of different classes? What I think would be cool is if we just...
This is actually already being discussed in #55.
@pitaj - I've occasionally seen you express your strong dislike for mandatory explicit completion values - you seem to be one of the most vocal about it, which is why...
I guess I just felt bad for hijacking that thread with a thought that wasn't part of the original idea. But, I probably should have just left the conversation there,...
Thanks @pitaj for your insights. So, here are some of my thoughts around this. Your argument about readability of `do { if (x) { 12 } else { 54 }...
@getify - thanks, I did (embarrassingly) forget about that option. We can call that "potential solution `#4`", and put it on the table of possible options to compare and contrast.
@getify - Perhaps another way to look at the optional-give issue, is that it's only solving half of the issues with implicit-give. Yes, it'll provide a way to avoid ASI...