I mean, it would be only a parse time cost if the identity tag is used like
```js String.tag`...anything...` ``` assuming it is not monkey-patchable (readonly). But maybe if it is patchable then all bets are off, and it has a runtime cost. #!/JoePea On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps a built-in identity tag would be only a parse-time performance cost. > #!/JoePea > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:21 PM #!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't know what you mean about the raw stuff, but using `/*css*/` > > works perfectly fine in VS Code with a plugin. There's no reason > > intellisense can't work inside the commented string. If you meant > > about completing the `css` part, if you accidentally write `/*ccs*/` > > then the colors won't look right. Missing auto-completion inside the > > little comment isn't that bad. > > > > I prefer using the comment because using an identity tag just for > > syntax feels like I'm adding a performance cost for no reason related > > to my runtime code. > > > > But perhaps a built-in identity tag would be fast. > > > > #!/JoePea > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:02 AM Andrea Giammarchi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
