Object.eq is ready for discussion
Tom Van Cutsem
tomvc.be at gmail.com
Wed Sep 8 02:04:22 PDT 2010
FWIW: Clojure (the "new Lisp") uses (identical? a b)
I don't know why Rich Hickey dropped 'eq?' and went with 'identical?', but I
2010/9/7 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>
> 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. 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.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss