Simen kjaeraas:
> Seconded. Often I end up using is( typeof( { something } ) ) because
> it's faster than looking up and understanding how to write the
> equivalent isExpression. Yet, I don't have much of an idea of how
> to make it better. Is there a DIP for this?I think is() has to be split in different things with a different (more intuitive) syntax/naming. Bye, bearophile
