With something that while unintuitive in one case, is eternally robust and reliable.
If you want extensibility, define Symbol.toStringTag on your objects. On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:23 PM Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> wrote: > If it's unfixably broken[1], non-extensible, excessively vague, and > non-orthogonal, where does that leave you? > > > > [1] <https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/798317702775324672> > > > > *From:* Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 27, 2019 3:00 PM > *To:* Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> > *Cc:* ViliusCreator <viliuskubilius...@gmail.com>; es-discuss@mozilla.org > *Subject:* Re: Proposal: Typeof Trap > > > > Those two PRs are about removing implementation-defined behavior from > `typeof`, making it *more* reliable - there is no trend away from using and > relying on `typeof`, full stop. > > > > `Symbol.hasInstance` is a part of why `instanceof` is actually unreliable > - because user code can hook into it. It would be a massive loss imo if > `typeof` lost its bulletproof status by adding a user hook. > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:37 PM Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> > wrote: > > The trend seems to be to rely on typeof less and less as time passes: > > > > From the March 2019 Agenda < > https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/274e49412c09f81a0a82f386e6eead481c69adad/2019/03.md > >: > > > > “Implementation-defined typeof still necessary?” < > https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/1440> > > “Normative: Remove implementation-defined typeof behavior” < > https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1441> > > > > > > The only real discussion around this I can find is from a related proposal > from Brendan Eich a few years ago: > > > > > https://esdiscuss.org/topic/typeof-extensibility-building-on-my-value-objects-slides-from-thursday-s-tc39-meeting > > > > > > > > *From:* ViliusCreator <viliuskubilius...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 27, 2019 2:04 PM > *To:* Michael Haufe <t...@thenewobjective.com> > *Subject:* RE: Proposal: Typeof Trap > > > > *Yes, but it traps `typeof `, not `instanceof`. There’s difference there.* > > _______________________________________________ > 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
