proposal-bind-operator VS proposal-record-tuple

There was also a different proposal that allows objects to be extended: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-bind-operator

Personally, I don't use classes much, but sometimes I think free functions a little bit hard to find, so I tend to experiment with the following pattern.

interface User { … }

const User = {

Yangi bind operatori Function.prototype.bind ni yanada elegant tarzda ishlatish imkonini beruvchi yangi sintaksis

In modern JS, you can export each function directly without putting them in an object. It also allows you to call a function with a specific “this” value, function.bind(object)(args). As a matter of fact, there’s a syntax proposal proposal and to do exactly this, object::function(args). This proposal could make what you describe pretty popular.

Hey, not yet ;)

This binding syntax (::)

You'd need 4 periods.

I don't think you want realms so much as protocols or extensions, the latter assimilating the beloved bind operator.

relevant issue, which is at the crux of this problem: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/387

There are still so many basic things that aren't in the JS stdlib, though. A good example is Map - if you need to use a tuple of two values as a key, you're SOL because there's no way to customize key comparisons. Hopefully we'll get https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/ eventually, but meanwhile languages ranging from C++ to Java to Python have had some sensible way to do this for over 20 years now.

If you’re reaching for structuredClone, what you really want is native immutable Record and Tuple syntax, and the companion “deep path properties” syntax which allows for efficient and ergonomic immutable updates:

- https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple

It will be called "record" in JavaScript which will swing the popularity back the other way I guess (currently a language proposal)

I suspect considering the strong desire to maintain consistency with JavaScript, we will eventually see something that when the Record proposal passes through tc39

I hope the Record and Tuple proposal makes it through

I mean, I'd love some real immutable/persistent data structures in JS by default, or even some Immer-like syntax sugar. Something like the record/tuple proposal would be awesome.

This will become very useful once Records and Tuples are a thing, because it allows you to store object references in a record/tuple (which by definition can only contain primitives).

Record and tuple is at stage 2

Also, js has an ongoing immutable value data types proposal.