Omit Positional Function Parameter Similar to Array Destructuring

💡 Ideas
1

Reasoning

Currently if you are using a callback function but not using the first, second, etc. argument it's a little awkward. Which currently looks like:

object.method((_firstUnusedParam, _secondUnusedParam, thirdParam) => thirdParam)
// or
object.method((_, __, thirdParam) => thirdParam)

A couple real world examples

// Array.prototype.map
array.map((_value, index) => `item: ${index + 1}`)

// express
app.get('/', (_req, res) => {
  res.send('ok')
})

Idea

Similar to array destructuring

const [, , thirdValue] = array

It would be convenient if you could omit preceding positional function arguments if you did not need them like this:

object.method((, , thirdParam) => thirdParam)

Real world examples:

array.map((, index) => `item: ${index + 1}`)

// express
app.get('/', (, res) => {
  res.send('ok')
})
3 Likes
2

While this would be fewer characters for the author to type it might not help when reading the code later. The convention of using the single _ or a prefixed _ feels easier to follow when quickly glancing through code for me personally.

3

I am not so much worried about the typing, so much as it feels cumbersome declaring variables I'm not going to use. I think

(_, _, param) => param

would be just as good, but unfortunately you cannot reuse the underscore. But perhaps you are right that just the _ with the variable name is not so bad.

You don't have the same intuition about the array destructing though, or would you prefer people also do?

const [_value1, _value2, value3] = array
4

This proposal has already been rejected by the committee: https://github.com/devsnek/proposal-unused-function-parameters

2 Likes
5

So it has. Thanks for the info. One of the commit members point out you could co-opt the array syntax for the same purpose.

app.get('/', (...[, res]) => {
  res.send('ok')
})

array.map((...[, index]) => `item: ${index + 1}`)

Also a little awkward, but maybe useful if you needed to skip two or more parameters, otherwise, for one I'd probably just use the underscore _.

app.get('/', (_req, _res, next) => {
  console.log('root request')
  next()
})

// vs.

app.get('/', (...[, , next]) => {
  console.log('root request')
  next()
})

:man_shrugging:

1 Like
6

Huh, I kind of liked this idea of omitting function parameters. I can certainly see it being annoying to figure out what to do with optional parameters - Using an underscore works ok for a single parameter, but things get awkward when there's multiple. I've certainly run into this problem a small handful of times.

1 Like
7

Here I come again with another suggestion: What if there were a notation on the function declaration that allowed for optional positioning of those parameter values from the caller? Something like this:

function example(param1, ?param2, ?param3, param4) {
   //Do whatever
}

This would work out just the same as if the following had been written instead:

function example(param1, param2, param3, param4) {
   switch (arguments.length) {
      case 2:
         param4 = param2;
         param2 = void 0;
         break;
      case 3:
         param4 = param3;
         param3 = void 0;
         break;
   }
   //Do whatever
}

The general idea is to ensure that all non-optional parameters are filled first, then fill optional parameters in order given additional available parameter data.