typeof symbol (Was: Sept 19 TC39 Meeting Notes)

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Mon Oct 1 09:00:27 PDT 2012


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>wrote:

> On 30 September 2012 00:08, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> > I think this is too philosophical a discussion to result in a strong
> reason
> > to risk "symbol". Just my gut-check. Other TC39ers should weigh in
> (Andreas
> > R. especially).
>
> Type "symbol" would be my preference, but it is difficult to estimate
> (for me) whether that involves a risk.
>
> However, this clearly is an issue beyond symbols alone. The same
> problem re-arises whenever we have to add new primitive types in the
> future. It doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy to fake any new
> type ever into an object. Perhaps it is less harmful on the long run
> if we took the chance to clarify _now_ that the set of strings
> returned by 'typeof' is not fixed, and should not be treated as such?
>

+1 for "symbol", after reading through past concerns about adding new
entries to typeof operator results, I'm not convinced that adding something
completely new would have any negative side-effects. I'll be the first to
admit that there are probably edge cases that I may have missed or didn't
find, but I think the real risk is in piling new things on to existing
typeof results when they questionably don't belong.

Rick



>
> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121001/cee262f8/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list