> Personally I think `a < b` should just become a compile error if the types are not number. TypeScript?
I'm not following you. JavaScript variables don't have types, so it can't become a compile-time error; and making it one would *massively* break the web. (Yes, you can use TypeScript to get types if you like, but we're not talking about TypeScript.) > ...that's a separable concern which should not be part of the operator's behaviour IMO... There's no talk of changing how `<` and `>` (or `<=` and `>=`) work. But just as we have `==` (loose, coercing) and `===` (strict, non-coercing), the discussion is about having strict non-coercing versions of `<`, `>`, `<=`, and `>=`. -- T.J. Crowder On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Alexander Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > Personally I think `a < b` should just become a compile error if the types > are not number. TypeScript? > > If you want to also check that they are both number (that's surely what we > mean here and not that they are both string!) and return `false` if not, > that's a separable concern which should not be part of the operator's > behaviour IMO. It would appear to just mask fundamental typing errors, > unless I am missing some perspective? > > Alex > > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 at 09:02, T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder@farsightsoftware. > com> wrote: > >> Grr, there's always something. I forgot to mention that solving this with >> functions is an option because short-circuiting isn't an issue, both >> operands have to be evaluated by these relational operators anyway. So >> unlike the motiviations for infix functions or macros or whatever, we don't >> have that issue here. >> >> -- T.J. Crowder >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 8:56 AM, T.J. Crowder < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Very interesting stuff so far. >> >> My take on some options, organized into sections: >> >> * Solving it in userland >> * Using symbolic operators >> * Using functions >> * Using non-symbolic operators >> >> # Solving it in userland: >> >> Anyone wanting strict relational operators today can readily give >> themselves functions for it: >> >> ```js >> const lt = (a, b) => typeof a === typeof b && a < b; >> ``` >> >> Usage: >> >> ```js >> if (lt(a, b)) { >> // ... >> } >> ``` >> >> So the question is whether the value of having a standard way of >> expressing this is worth the cost of adding it? >> >> Playing into that is that various options come with varying costs: >> >> * Using symbolic operators has a cost, but doesn't change fundamentals; >> I'm not an implementer, but I'd think the cost would be fairly low (but >> non-zero). *Any* syntax change rattles parsing cages everywhere, but syntax >> changes are now fairly regular occurrences in JavaScript. >> * Using functions means no new syntax, which means not rattling parsing >> cages, and are polyfillable. >> * Using non-symbolic operators rattles cages, and probably more >> significantly than new symbolic ones, and has been rejected in the past >> (`is`/`isnt`). >> >> So that's in the mix. >> >> # Using symbolic operators: >> >> ## Form >> >> The closest I can come to consistency with `==`/`===` and `!=`/`!==` is: >> >> Loose Strict >> == === >> != !== >> < <=< >> > >=> >> <= <== >> >= >== >> >> We can think of the `=` in the middle as being what signifies the strict >> type aspect. The second `<` and `>` on `<=<` and `>=>` are a hack, but a >> reasonable hack that's in the spirit of the original two strict operators. >> :-) >> >> ## Semantics >> >> Because they're like `!==` and `===`, their semantics would have to be in >> line with `!==` and `===`: The result is `true` if the operands are of the >> same type and the relation is true, `false` otherwise. >> >> # Using functions: >> >> ## Form >> >> Given `Object.is(value1, value2)` there's an argument for putting these >> on `Object` as well. But `Object` is an odd place for them (and indeed for >> `is`). Perhaps we need a place for these to go. But sticking with `Object` >> for now: >> >> ```js >> Object.lt(value1, value2) >> Object.gt(value1, value2) >> Object.lte(value1, value2) >> Object.gte(value1, value2) >> ``` >> >> So: >> >> ```js >> if (Object.lt(a, b)) { >> // ... >> } >> ``` >> >> Verbose, and again, using `Object` if I'm comparing numbers or strings >> seems wrong. But it's consistent with the prior practice of `Object.is`. >> >> Michael J. Ryan suggested putting them on `Number`, `String`, and >> `Object` instead, on the theory that if you're being strict, you know what >> you're comparing. I'm not sure I agree that you do (a generic "take the >> lower of these two" function, for instance), but there's something there. >> It doesn't address the verbosity issue. (Presumably we only need `Number` >> and `String` though, unless we're going to introduce a whole mechanism for >> relational comparison of objects. Or unless the `Object` version just hands >> off to the `Number` or `String` version based on the first operand type.) >> >> ## Semantics >> >> Using functions gives us the opportunity to use slightly different >> semantics: >> >> 1. `true`: The operands are the same type and the relation is true >> 2. `false`: The operands are the same type and the relation is false >> 3. `undefined`: The operands are of different types >> >> This takes advantage of the fact `undefined` is falsy to not get in the >> way of people just using the result in a condition, but if they examine the >> result itself, it's possible to differentiate between #2 and #3. >> >> Sadly, `Object.is` (the exposed version of the SameValue algorithm) does >> not make this distinction. >> >> # Non-symbolic operators >> >> JavaScript already has at least one binary operator that isn't symbolic: >> `in`. Maybe there's a case for adding more. Brendan Eich is [on record]( >> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/suggestion-mapping- >> symbolic-infix-ops-to-binary-functions#content-5) five years ago as >> having issues with them: >> >> > > modulo, div, divmod, has, extends >> >> > These are much better as methods. Polyfillable, but also not subject to >> weird line terminator restrictions on the left. Same arguments killed >> is/isnt. >> >> Hence `Object.is`, presumably (the linked discussion was about infix >> functions, not `is`). I don't know if that view has shifted in the >> subsequent five years; there have been big changes in the way JavaScript >> moves forward. But that was an objection at least then. >> >> ## Form >> >> `lt`, `lte`, `gt`, and `gte`. And while we're at it, `eq` and `noteq`. So: >> >> ```js >> if (a lt b) { >> // ... >> } >> ``` >> >> To avoid breaking the web, the new non-symbolic operators would have to >> remain valid identifiers, only being operators by context, a bit like how >> `for` can be a literal property name (`obj.for`) as of ES5 because we know >> from context that it's not the `for` statement. But I assume (not being a >> parser guy) that it's more complex to handle the above (those "weird line >> terminator conditions on the left" Eich mentioned). >> >> ## Semantics >> >> Like functions, non-symbolic operators let us consider slightly tweaking >> the semantics, e.g. that `undefined` result for operands of different types >> I mentioned earlier. >> >> # Wrap-up thoughts >> >> Unless it's left to userland, the simplest, least cage-rattling approach >> is to add functions to `Object`, but it's also ugly to use. It does have >> the benefit (in my view) of letting us tweak the return value when the >> types don't match. >> >> It seems to me the second least cage-rattling is to add symbolic >> operators consistent with `===` and `!==`. >> >> -- T.J. Crowder >> >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michael J. Ryan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Thinking on it... (Number|Object|String) .strict(Equal|Greater|Less...) >> Methods (a, b) might be better... If either value isn't a match for the >> bound type, it's a false, even if both sides are equal... >> >> Ex,. >> >> Number.strictEqual(null, null) false >> >> Object.strictEqual(1, 1) false >> ... >> >> If you're doing a strict compare, one can presume you should know what >> you're comparing. >> >> >> -- >> Michael J. Ryan - [email protected] - http://tracker1.info >> >> Please excuse grammar errors and typos, as this message was sent from my >> phone. >> >> On Apr 11, 2017 10:46 PM, "felix" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Maybe every operator can have a non-coercing variant? >> >> One possible syntax is to have a modifier on operators >> x = a (<) b (+) c (&&) (!)d; >> if (x (!=) y) ... >> >> Another possible syntax is to have a modifier on expressions >> x = #(a < b + c && !d) >> if #(x != y) ... >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Darien Valentine <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Although I’m unsure if this is wise given there are already eleven >> symbols >> > that are combinations of `=` and `<`/`>`, for symmetry with `==` and >> `===` >> > I’d imagine something like this: >> > >> > ``` >> > COERCIVE STRICT >> >> =>= >> > < =<= >> >>= =>== >> > <= =<== >> > ``` >> > >> > Could also follow the pattern `>==` (strict GT) and `<===` (strict GTE), >> > which avoids the awkwardness of the latter two sharing opening chars >> with >> > `=>`, but that seems more ambiguous since `>==` doesn’t let you infer >> > whether it means strict GT or strict GTE. >> > >> > It’d be nice to have this functionality built in, but I wonder if it’d >> > possibly be preferable to provide it through methods of one of the >> built-in >> > objects, rather than as operators. Functions after all are more >> flexible. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > es-discuss mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
