Avoid the word "mutate" while explaining const
#584
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
LGTM |
goatslacker
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2015
Avoid the word "mutate" while explaining `const`
|
nice |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Since a common misconception about the
constkeyword in ES2015 is that it prohibits mutation of values when in fact it only prohibits mutation of references I think it’s clearer to avoid this word in this context completely. When we talk about mutability and immutability in JS we almost always mean values and not references. So although the wording in this section is correct I think it should be re-phrased to avoid confusion. :)