> Constants? We don't need no stinking constants! :-P Manifest strings, a la
> typeof, are the natural and self-describing upgrade path, if we're talking
> typeof (see Subject).
>
> The Reflect namespace object is part of direct proxies, also populated in
> SpiderMonkey (not web-facing) by Reflect.parse to get an AST for a given
> source string. We could indeed put type-reflecting method(s) there but I'm
> loath to add manifest constants. What's wrong with strings?
Nothing – if it’s only about primitive values. But if you want to have
something that is both Allen’s `class` operator (for objects) and `typeof` (for
primitive values) then constants are the best solution (that I can think of).
I’ve always thought that the distinction between typeof and instanceof was a
bit artificial, it would be nice if we had something that unified both.
Or do you propose returning functions for objects and strings for primitives?
E.g.:
switch(type(x)) {
case "null": // x is null
...
break;
case "string": // typeof x === "string"
...
break;
case String: // x instanceof String
...
break;
}
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
