Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Source §3 Concurrent: doesn't support rest and spread syntax #1064

Closed
martin-henz opened this issue Jul 26, 2021 · 3 comments
Closed

Source §3 Concurrent: doesn't support rest and spread syntax #1064

martin-henz opened this issue Jul 26, 2021 · 3 comments
Assignees
@angelsl
Labels
Enhancement New feature or request minor less important than important but more than nice-to-have

Comments

@martin-henz
Copy link
Member

Feature introduced in Source §3 in July 2021
@martin-henz martin-henz added important Fixing this is important, but not mission-critical Question Further information is requested labels Jul 26, 2021
@martin-henz martin-henz added Enhancement New feature or request minor less important than important but more than nice-to-have and removed important Fixing this is important, but not mission-critical Question Further information is requested labels Dec 13, 2021
@martin-henz
Copy link
Member Author

It would be nice to make Source §3 Concurrent consistent with Source §3 with respect to the rest and spread syntax. Currently we get:

list(...[1,2,3]);
==> Error: Unsupported operation

function f(x,...y) {
return y;
}
==> Line 2: Name y not declared.

@martin-henz martin-henz changed the title VM: can it handle rest and spread of function parameters/arguments? Source §3 Concurrent: doesn't support rest and spread syntax Dec 13, 2021
@martin-henz
Copy link
Member Author

Same as #1616

@RichDom2185
Copy link
Member

Duplicate of #1616

@RichDom2185 RichDom2185 marked this as a duplicate of #1616 Mar 31, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@angelsl angelsl

Labels
Enhancement New feature or request minor less important than important but more than nice-to-have
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@angelsl @martin-henz @RichDom2185