FEAT: Support default arguments in functions

[0xe]

Adds support for default values in function parameters and default values in destructuring assignment.

What's not implemented yet, that I plan to implement subsequently:

• Destructuring with defaults in for loops (eg: for (let {x = 2} = {}; ; ))
• Reading [Symbol.iterator] from default array/object
• Nested Literals

(Added ignored tests for these in DefaultParametersTest)

[rbri]

@0xe wow great, i really need this feature and i will try to support you to get this out of the door.

[rbri]

@0xe maybe you can start simple only by supporting scalar values

and i think we have to place this behind a feature switch e.g. like this

[rbri]

because i like to work on this i removed the draft flag - hope this is ok

[rbri]

draft flag is back

[0xe]

Sorry, haven't had the chance to get back at this due to some personal commitments. Should be able to work again on this from next week.

[p-bakker]

Great to see your continued effort to implement this!

Think you're getting closer to this PR being ready for review and merge? Not trying to put pressure on or anything, just wondering

[0xe]

Great to see your continued effort to implement this!

Think you're getting closer to this PR being ready for review and merge? Not trying to put pressure on or anything, just wondering

Thank you! Yes, hopefully in a couple of days, I can mark it ready for review.

[0xe]

What's not implemented yet:

• Destructuring with defaults in for loops (eg: for (let {x = 2} = {}; ; ))
• Reading [Symbol.iterator] from default array/object
• Nested Literals

(Added ignored tests for these in DefaultParametersTest)

[gbrail]

This is looking good and a very helpful improvement judging from the number of tests that start to pass. Let us know when you have a chance for us to try it out more -- right now it needs another merge with master (sorry, things are actually moving sort of fast with this project!)

[0xe]

This is looking good and a very helpful improvement judging from the number of tests that start to pass. Let us know when you have a chance for us to try it out more -- right now it needs another merge with master (sorry, things are actually moving sort of fast with this project!)

Thank you. Updated with master.

[gbrail]

Thanks a ton for working on this! Right now we haven't been accepting merge commits in this codebase, which is why I'm trying to rebase it. I still think that's good code hygiene but it makes changes like this very difficult.

I tried to "git rebase" this branch myself, but I'm having to go through the entire long commit history and essentially try to understand what you tried to do each step of the way, and I quickly realized that I didn't know what you were doing. So, I have to apologize and tell you that I don't think I can merge this as it is.

I think that if we want to move this forward, then either:

1. You can try to "git rebase master" this branch, and see if you can make it work.
2. Or, if you recall what the major changes are, you can essentially apply them manually to the current source, either in a new branch and a new PR, or an update to this branch, so that GitHub can automatically apply these changes to master.

[0xe]

Thanks a ton for working on this! Right now we haven't been accepting merge commits in this codebase, which is why I'm trying to rebase it. I still think that's good code hygiene but it makes changes like this very difficult.

I tried to "git rebase" this branch myself, but I'm having to go through the entire long commit history and essentially try to understand what you tried to do each step of the way, and I quickly realized that I didn't know what you were doing. So, I have to apologize and tell you that I don't think I can merge this as it is.

I think that if we want to move this forward, then either:

1. You can try to "git rebase master" this branch, and see if you can make it work.
2. Or, if you recall what the major changes are, you can essentially apply them manually to the current source, either in a new branch and a new PR, or an update to this branch, so that GitHub can automatically apply these changes to master.

Understood. Let me try to rebase it against master.

[0xe]

@gbrail, I've created #1640, which contains the same changes as this but squashed and done on top of master. Closing this in favour of that PR.