Okay, I stand corrected... (I forgot about those) On Sat, Apr 15, 2017, 04:01 Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's also `instanceof`. > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:31 PM, T.J. Crowder < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Happy with `neq`. >> >> > Up to date, the only keyword >> > operators have been exclusively unary, such as `typeof`, `await`, >> > and `yield`. >> >> Not quite. :-) As I mentioned when suggesting them originally, there is >> *one* binary non-symbolic operator already: `in` >> >> ```js >> if ("foo" in obj) >> ``` >> >> So the concept of non-symbolic binary operators isn't entirely new to the >> parsing/grammar infrastructure. >> >> -- T.J. Crowder >> >> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> So far, the only decent proposal I've seen here is the keyword >>> operator idea. It looks operator-y, and it actually reads like what >>> you expect. Few nits about the general idea, and most of these would >>> probably keep TC39 from considering them: >>> >>> 1. `neq` is better than `noteq`. 2 fewer characters for a common >>> operation. >>> >>> 2. JS is a weakly typed language, and coerces nearly everything. It >>> normally calls `.valueOf()` (if it exists) and coerces the result to >>> numbers for the comparison operators. Strong type checking has >>> generally only been reserved for scenarios that can't be optimized >>> well otherwise (like the length of typed arrays) or that require >>> specific guarantees that coercion prevents (like uniqueness for weak >>> collections). >>> >>> 3. TypeScript and Flow both literally don't have this issue at all, >>> and several members of TC39 actively use these in mission-critical >>> code. >>> >>> 4. JS has historically *avoided* keyword operators, electing to remain >>> close-ish to its curly brace and punctuation-driven roots. Consider >>> `=>`, `&&` and `||`, `function *`, etc. Up to date, the only keyword >>> operators have been exclusively unary, such as `typeof`, `await`, and >>> `yield`. So this would face a potentially steep slope to acceptance. >>> >>> Just a bit of pessimistic pragmatism here. >>> ----- >>> >>> Isiah Meadows >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:33 PM, doodad-js Admin <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > I prefer the idea of keyword operators, like : >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > a lt 1 // strict < 1 >>> > >>> > a lte 1 // strict <=1 >>> > >>> > a gt 1 // strict > 1 >>> > >>> > a gte 1 // strict >= 1 >>> > >>> > ... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > That’s easier to understand and memorize. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > From: Dawid Szlachta [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:12 AM >>> > To: Jordan Harband <[email protected]> >>> > Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]> >>> > Subject: Re: Re: Strict Relational Operators >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > [...] >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > The =@=@= operator is probably easier to add and won't break the web. >>> Also, >>> > some basic pattern matching for functions would be useful and time >>> saving >>> > feature: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > [...] >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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
