I think it doesn't matter where it lands, and I've overlooked at the already available String.raw.
My idea is to have it "no matter where, or how named" as it's the functionality I am after, not the name. String.plain sounds great, but since template literals tag functions are named "template literals tag functions", I've thought String.tag would implicitly describe the intent. And then again, I don't care about the name, "we" (developers that use template literals a lot) would love it no matter how it's called ;-) On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:16 PM Bergi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > my 5ct: Putting the static function on the `Function` object doesn't > make any sense to me. Using `String.tag` seems like much more sensible > choice. Or, how about `String.plain`, in contrast to `String.raw`? > > I can see the use case, altough I'd really prefer tooling to become more > intelligent in that regard. > > best, > Bergi > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
