Can anyone put together a strawman proposal for unsubscribing from this
email?
I suggest using `!@` as the operator.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 04:59 Felipe Nascimento de Moura <
felipenmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, access the link:
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
> then look for
An alternative way is to send an email to
es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject or
body. (You can also email it "help" to get info on other commands.)
-
Isiah Meadows
m...@isiahmeadows.com
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get
> You already can't assume the result is `typeof new function () { return value
> } === "object"`
Yes, that's why I need reliable ways to test whether a value is an object, and
your proposal breaks one of these.
> here's what I usually do:
>
> ```
> function isObject(value) {
> return value
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Oriol _
wrote:
> No, `typeof` is not reliable, because it's implementation-defined
> for non-standard non-callable exotic objects.
>
> For example, old IE used to return `"unknown"` in various cases.
Also `"object"` for host-provided functions (such as
`document.c
What's the use case? Maybe there's a nice way of doing what you want
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 at 19:17 T.J. Crowder
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Oriol _
> wrote:
> > No, `typeof` is not reliable, because it's implementation-defined
> > for non-standard non-callable exotic objects.
> >
>
I normally name it `isReferenceType` or similar, but was just reusing
the name originally used here. For the purposes of this, my
`isReferenceType` is equivalent to the `value === new function () {
return value }` check, while still avoiding diving into builtins. I
was just focused on a correct equ
Okay, you could invert the condition and do it this way. If it's
spec-conforming, this should work:
```js
function isObject(value) {
return value != null &&
typeof value !== "boolean" &&
typeof value !== "number" &&
typeof value !== "string" &&
typeof value !==
One of the use case for this is – given a function that is either one that
returns an instance or one that returns an explicit return value, but would
otherwise throw if invoked without the "new" keyword.
Always being able to safely invoke it with "new" is a nice guarantee to
have that wouldn't re
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Isiah Meadows
wrote:
>
> Here's my proposal:
>
> In constructors, currently, non-objects are replaced with `this`.
> Here's what I think it should be replaced with:
>
> 1. When calling the constructor, if `undefined` is returned and
> `new.target` is not `undefine
I don't understand the use case. If anything I would like it if returning
an object that fails `new Class instanceof Class` to also fail, not permit
even more oddities.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Isiah Meadows
wrote:
> Here's my proposal:
>
> In constructors, currently, non-objects are rep
My rationale was detailed in a response to another person eariler:
> But my idea was just to bring `new` and normal calls a little closer
to one another. Eventually, I'd like to see if primitive wrapper types
could disappear, and this is one of the areas where I'm trying to see
if it's feasible to
Email missed the list.
-
Isiah Meadows
m...@isiahmeadows.com
Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
www.isiahmeadows.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Isiah Meadows
Date: Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal:
12 matches
Mail list logo
