brendan at mozilla.org
Fri Jun 12 23:45:18 UTC 2015
Edwin Reynoso wrote:
> Yes please edit it, you don't have to repost. BTW the only thing I can
> agree with is the `Object.is()` which to me seems like the only
> problem it solves is `Object.is(NaN, NaN)` now returns true
You didn't agree with the root post (whose sender has had the "mod" flag
set for moderated postings, btw). That root post ignored compatibility
constraints that have been discussed to death over the years, and just
glibly asserted that == and === could be changed. So, I don't believe
you agreed with that noise. Am I mistaken?
If your point is that Object.is does not pull its weight, make a
stronger case for why people should have to write it by hand.
You missed that Object.is(-0, +0) (and with arguments transposed) is
false, while -0 === +0.
More information about the es-discuss