typeof extensibility, building on my Value Objects slides from Thursday's TC39 meeting
brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Aug 5 15:09:53 PDT 2013
Claude Pache wrote:
> You're right that people are good at language adaptation, thus it is not necessary to go as far as to change the nomenclature. The main concern remains, that they usetoday `Object.isObject` by meaning probably `isReferenceObject`, so it is prudent not to standardise something else under this very name.
Agreed -- I will fix in the forthcoming strawman revision.
>> > How about Object.isReference?
> Instead of `!Object.isValue`?
Yes, in case that is a sharper way to phrase it.
> Indeed, for me I test more naturally for a Reference Object ("is it an Object-like or not?") than for a Value. Plus, `s/ \b Object.isObject \b / Object.isReference /xg` would refactor some expected legacy code in an twinkling of an eye.
Great point. Sold. Thanks for the patient and thoughtful feedback!
More information about the es-discuss