3 ms·
Maybe I am dense, but in the examples given, the code this feature is meant to replace looks much more straight forward and easy to reason about. I get the use
by localghost3000 3y ago
Maybe I am dense, but in the examples given, the code this feature is meant to replace looks much more straight forward and easy to reason about. I get the use case here: automatically manage resources that need to be opened/closed like files etc but the syntax is way too convoluted IMO.
- throwanem 3y agoIt's a new lexical binding form parallel to const and let, and a requirement that any value so bound have a property with a specified name. Where do you see the convolution?
- localghost3000 3y agoI understand what I am looking at. It's just that it just reads a lot less straight forward than the code its looking to replace IMO.
- throwanem 3y agoI get that that's what you're saying, I guess I just don't understand how it reads as more complicated. Different strokes, though.