Object.eq is ready for discussion
brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Sep 7 08:56:13 PDT 2010
On Sep 7, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Jürg Lehni wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2010, at 02:01, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> It would following the verg-object-noun-phrase convention, but we have more than one convention.
>> Note how isNaN(x) and isFinite(x) are functions taking one parameter. Whereas Object.identical(a, b) tests whether two values *are* identical. Does "is" work still? Could we dodge the issue (as well as the implied preposition "to": isIdenticalTo) by using Jeff's "identical" suggestion?
> Maybe one could argue that Object.isIdentical(a, b) is the generic version of non-existing a.isIdentical(b) ?
Maybe. It's hard to worry since we won't have the latter (no Pythonic reflection of self-methods as class-methods with self uncurried).
Humpty-Dumpty naming still applies to a large extent, but usability and aesthetics need more than a committee, or a mailing list -- they need some inherent design, or strong precedent, if not the customary strong single designer (http://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/DesignedAsDesignerExpanded.pdf).
I'd be happy with Object.eq if not for the terseness compared to almost every other identifier in the standard library. But if the alternative is an overlong name, I'll go back to eq and stand there with Mark.
More information about the es-discuss