tc39 proposal-deep-path-properties-for-record issues

tc39 / proposal-deep-path-properties-for-record

ECMAScript proposal for deep spread syntax for Records

93 stars 2 forks source link

issues

Newest

Newest Most commented Recently updated Oldest Least commented Least recently updated

`alter` keyword

#21 leontrolski opened 2 years ago
2
Support for transforming updates?

#19 dead-claudia opened 3 years ago
18
Less obtrusive approach for deep paths

#18 stiff opened 3 years ago
7
syntax/support for dynamic paths

#17 acutmore opened 3 years ago
0
The minus operator

#20 devlato opened 4 years ago
2
Should numeric literal be allowed in deep path properties?

#16 JLHwung opened 4 years ago
6
Suggestions: Investigate `.{` operator for "mutations"

#15 rbuckton opened 4 years ago
6
Make Immutable.js comparison example more idiomatic and readable

#14 acusti closed 4 years ago
0
Syntax overlap with proposal-shorthand-improvements

#13 rbuckton opened 4 years ago
0
Deep path properties in Tuples

#12 littledan opened 4 years ago
0
Should deep path properties work in Objects too?

#11 littledan opened 4 years ago
7
Should optional chaining be allowed in deep path properties?

#10 chicoxyzzy opened 4 years ago
2
Bug in example?

#9 rauschma opened 4 years ago
0
Deep property creation

#8 ByteEater-pl opened 4 years ago
1
added concrete example and comparisons to recursive spread, immutable.js and immer

#7 rickbutton closed 4 years ago
0
Edit materialization explanation

#6 littledan closed 4 years ago
0
Add more explanation of the motivation, with more code samples

#5 littledan closed 4 years ago
0
What happens if the deep path does not exist in the value that is spread?

#4 littledan closed 4 years ago
16
Restrict proposal to only work in Records (and Tuples nested inside)

#3 littledan closed 4 years ago
1
Update proposal readme for current Record/Tuple proposal

#2 littledan closed 4 years ago
1
Reconsider name: e.g., "Deep paths in record literals"

#1 littledan closed 4 years ago
4