Implement destructuring in the AST about aurelia HOT 4 CLOSED

I would love to see @EisenbergEffect thought on this

from aurelia.

It's not a critical scenario for me. I'm open to adding this but I think I'd want to get our core system rock solid first. I guess I'd consider this more of a "bell and whistle" feature for the binding language. I'm not sure what the best path to implementation would be. Whatever it is, we don't want to get into situations where the developer is hitting unexpected behavior or things aren't updating like they think they should. I don't really have strong opinions beyond these.

from aurelia.

Agree with @EisenbergEffect it's definitely low prio. I think I should separate this between destructuring for the repeater and destructuring in other scenarios, since that of the repeater will work differently (simpler). I made the thinking error that they would be "two for the price of one", but it won't be

from aurelia.

This is not a critical scenario, also we support the main one which is map destructuring. If it's necessary, we can open a new issue for this.

from aurelia.