Object.eq is ready for discussion

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Sep 7 09:48:28 PDT 2010

On Sep 7, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Ash Berlin wrote:

> On 7 Sep 2010, at 17:18, P T Withington wrote:
>> On 2010-09-07, at 12:02, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> 3. identical
>> If I had a vote, +1
>> Is there someplace that concisely explains the cost of just fixing `===` so I could understand why that is not a choice?
> FWIW this sort of naming issue is a rabbit hole that CommonJS fell down when it came to method names for a unit test framework[0]. There was no real consensus, but we settled on equal meaning == and strictEqual meaning ===. 

Those are fine names, and it seems you came out of the rabbit hole (under the bikeshed ;-).

All naming discussions can rathole (let's say), but I hope we can conclude this thread with a clear winner, as it seems you guys ultimately did.

Also, you picked spec-like names for == and === but there is no SameValue or Object.eq, I take it (even though one can be written in JS). If you had such a thing, I wonder whether you wouldn't name it identical (not reallyStrictEqual or sameValue).

But I don't want to send you back down the hole to find out! This es-discuss hole will do.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list