I'm sure there will evolve some other nomenclature for that in due course.
>From http://www.slideshare.net/BrendanEich/value-objects2 it sounds as if
it would be reasonable to define `Type(x)` to be `Value`, and thus
`Reflect.type(x)` to be `Reflect.types.value`.
Agree with the Symbol labels.
On 14 May 2015 at 18:50, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> FWIW, I think whatever contains "type" in modern JS should consider
> `int32`, `float64`, and all TypedArrays plus it would be awesome to have a
> way to define own types.
>
> In any case, if your idea will be implemented, I think it should have
> named Symbols for debugging sake.
>
> ```js
> Symbol('undefined'),
> Symbol('null'),
> Symbol('boolean')
> ```
>
> This would be at least consistent with current implementations of
> `Symbol.iterator` and friends.
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com> wrote:
>
>> Just an idea, if it doesn't already exist somewhere.
>>
>> Reflect.type(x) would match the spec's Type(x) function, in that it would
>> basically be a better, more convenient typeof, i.e.
>>
>> Reflect.types = {
>> undefined: Symbol(),
>> null: Symbol(),
>> boolean: Symbol(),
>> string: Symbol(),
>> symbol: Symbol(),
>> number: Symbol(),
>> object: Symbol(),
>> }
>>
>> Reflect.type(null) === Reflect.types.null
>> Reflect.type(function() {}) === Reflect.types.object
>>
>> We weren't able to fix typeof null in harmony, but this seems like a good
>> opportunity to introduce something new. Haven't thought about the
>> repercussions of future support for new value types...
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
