On Monday, 18 April 2011 18:22:53 UTC-3, Angus Croll wrote:
>
> Hey Jao
>
> I'm not advocating for or against coercion I'm just pointing out Douglas
> made a mistake on that page
>
> He strongly implied that if(foo) and if(foo != 0) are the same. But they
> are not the same and he completely avoi
Hey Jao
I'm not advocating for or against coercion I'm just pointing out Douglas
made a mistake on that page
He strongly implied that if(foo) and if(foo != 0) are the same. But they are
not the same and he completely avoided a discussion of why they are not the
same.
His words:
f you want the
On Monday, 18 April 2011 17:01:04 UTC-3, Angus Croll wrote:
>
> Hey JR
>
> He didn't say If (foo) { } is the same as if (foo !== 'undefined') { }
> He said If (foo) { } is the same as if (foo != 0) { }
>
> ( page 121 of The Good Parts)
>
>
Hi Angus,
In that (good) part of the book, Douglas Crockfo
Hey JR
He didn't say If (foo) { } is the same as if (foo !== 'undefined') { }
He said If (foo) { } is the same as if (foo != 0) { }
( page 121 of The Good Parts)
The former case uses toBoolean the latter uses toPrimitive
therefore:
var foo = [0];
console.log(foo ? true : false) //true
consol
On Monday, 18 April 2011 14:57:01 UTC-3, Angus Croll wrote:
>
> Just for the record my original post was not about == vs ===
>
> It was about Crockford's false claim that (!x) is the same as (x != 0)
>
> fails for cases such as x = "0" and x = [0]
>
> This is because former does ToBoolean coercio
On 18 April 2011 07:15, Olov Lassus wrote:
> On Apr 18, 1:18 am, Tim Down wrote:
>> In a typeof comparison, there's no technical reason to favour either
>> operator over the other, since they will behave identically. Saving a
>> keystroke and a character in the script delivered to the client is a
On Apr 18, 1:18 am, Tim Down wrote:
> In a typeof comparison, there's no technical reason to favour either
> operator over the other, since they will behave identically. Saving a
> keystroke and a character in the script delivered to the client is a
> tiny but tangible benefit of using ==. The ben
On 17 April 2011 22:44, Olov Lassus wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:50 am, Diego Perini wrote:
>> In this case both sides of the conditional expression contains strings
>> and no type conversion is necessary so "!=" is preferred.
>>
>> Strict comparison "!==" could be used without any problem, but there
>
On Apr 15, 11:50 am, Diego Perini wrote:
> In this case both sides of the conditional expression contains strings
> and no type conversion is necessary so "!=" is preferred.
>
> Strict comparison "!==" could be used without any problem, but there
> is no real reason to use it in this case once we
On Friday, 15 April 2011 06:50:45 UTC-3, Diego Perini wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:08 AM, J.R. wrote:
> As the typeof operator (ECMA-262 3rd ed, 11.4.3) returns a string, then it
> > is safe, in this case, to use either the != or !== equality operators.
>
> In this case both sides of the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:08 AM, J.R. wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 April 2011 19:37:59 UTC-3, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
>>
>> J.R.:
>>
>> > Instead of:
>> > if (window.ActiveXObject) {
>> >
>> > We should use:
>> > if (typeof window.ActiveXObject !== "undefined") {
>>
>> I would not use both approache
On Wednesday, 13 April 2011 19:37:59 UTC-3, Asen Bozhilov wrote:
>
> J.R.:
>
> > Instead of:
> > if (window.ActiveXObject) {
> >
> > We should use:
> > if (typeof window.ActiveXObject !== "undefined") {
>
> I would not use both approaches. I would use:
>
> if (typeof ActiveXObject != 'undefined
J.R.:
> Instead of:
> if (window.ActiveXObject) {
>
> We should use:
> if (typeof window.ActiveXObject !== "undefined") {
I would not use both approaches. I would use:
if (typeof ActiveXObject != 'undefined') {
//...
}
Or as Diego proposed:
if ('ActiveXObject' in this) {
//...
}
When
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:55 PM, J.R. wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2011 02:12:31 UTC-3, Angus Croll wrote:
>>
>> Douglas Crockford is a JavaScript hero and a great communicator. I learned
>> a lot from his writings and his excellent video series
>> (http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript-a
On Apr 12, 3:12 pm, Angus Croll wrote:
> Douglas Crockford is a JavaScript hero and a great communicator. I learned a
> lot from his writings and his excellent video series
> (http://net.tutsplus.com/tutorials/javascript-ajax/crockford-on-javasc...)
>
> We all make mistakes and I'm sure I make m
Whoops. Proof that everyone makes mistakes - typo in my second
example! I meant to write:
console.log(foo != 0); //false
On Apr 11, 10:12 pm, Angus Croll wrote:
> Douglas Crockford is a JavaScript hero and a great communicator. I learned a
> lot from his writings and his excellent video series
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
