Assignment to method invocation result

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Fri May 16 05:07:39 PDT 2014


On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I imagined .= would do both, but I don't think my suggestion should be
> taken
> > seriously. In fact, your example illustrates a major flaw (that exists in
> > either proposal/suggestion), that I don't immediately know how I would
> > answer:
> >
> > var o = { foo: "bar" };
> > o .= foo;
> >
> > Is `o` now a string with the value "bar"?? I think that would cause more
> > problems than its worth.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what it would do.  This sort of pattern is even
> reasonably common when doing tree-walking, for example: you see a lot
> of "node = node.left;" or whatnot.
>

In your example, is it safe to assume that `node.left` is a node? I'm
familiar with this precedent on a daily basis ;) It was the "object becomes
a string" behaviour that I was objecting to.

Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140516/effdb91d/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list