Inconsistent descriptions between destructuring concepts and Elyses Destructured Enchantments exercise

david-uhlig · November 9, 2025, 8:11am

Hello everyone!

The introduction of the Elyses Destructured Enchantments exercise contains additional information that isn’t in the Array Destructuring and Object Destructuring concepts’ descriptions.

Sections with additional information:

github.com

exercism/javascript/blob/03ff634194b31d80f8a4c8b24ec555edfe69a31b/exercises/concept/elyses-destructured-enchantments/.docs/introduction.md?plain=1#L17-L21


      
          In short:
          
          - The syntax allows for naming _positioned_ elements in an array, as well as swapping variables using re-assignment.
          - Destructuring syntax is available inside function parameters, and is available on any iterable.
          - Leaving a position unnamed (by not writing _any_ variable name) silently ignores that position.

github.com

exercism/javascript/blob/03ff634194b31d80f8a4c8b24ec555edfe69a31b/exercises/concept/elyses-destructured-enchantments/.docs/introduction.md?plain=1#L55-L58


      
          In short:
          
          - The syntax allows for both extracting properties as well as extracting and renaming them.
          - Destructuring syntax is available inside function parameters.

github.com

exercism/javascript/blob/03ff634194b31d80f8a4c8b24ec555edfe69a31b/exercises/concept/elyses-destructured-enchantments/.docs/introduction.md?plain=1#L43


      
            sun_behind_cloud: '⛅',
            sun_behind_large_cloud: '🌥️',
            sun_behind_rain_cloud: '🌦️',
            cloud: '☁️',
            cloud_with_rain: '🌧️',
            cloud_with_snow: '🌨️',
            cloud_with_lightning: '🌩️',
            cloud_with_lightning_and_rain: '⛈️',
          };
          
          const { sun, cloud, cloud_with_lightning: thunder } = weather;
          
          sun;
          // => '☀️'
          
          cloud;
          // => '☁️'
          
          thunder;
          // => '🌩️'
          ```

My usual workflow for going through the track is:

Read the concept(s) description
Go to the related exercise
Skip over the introduction section
Read the instructions section
Solve the exercise
…

Thus, I might miss extra information that is mentioned in the introduction section but not present in the concept description.

Shall I submit a PR to add the addition information to the concepts?

SleeplessByte · November 9, 2025, 3:40pm

It’s not necessarily incorrect that this information is not in the concept page, but in general we do try to make the concept page be at least the information provided in the exercise introduction, with some exceptions where the concept page just has a different or more elaborated explanations.

In this particular case I agree with your assessment that the concept page content should include the extra lines from the exercise introduction which … I (re)wrote .

We’ll take a PR, and if you have your Exercism and GitHub account linked you can get some reputation for it. Shout if you need help creating a Pull-Request.

david-uhlig · November 10, 2025, 2:59pm

I agree, it makes a lot of sense that the concept page should have at least the information that is provided in the exercise introduction.

In this particular case, I’m not sure what I’ve been reading yesterday. I remembered the concept page section to be much shorter. Upon re-reading today, I cannot find anything missing on the concept pages. They are well written already and contain all necessary information. The summary on the exercise page is also fine. Hence, no changes are required in my opinion. Apologies for the confusion.

SleeplessByte · November 10, 2025, 8:55pm

Hah, no worries.

Maybe because we have “In short:” twice, and that got you confused?