FW: Re: Strict Relational Operators

[Jordan Harband]

There's also `instanceof`.

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:31 PM, T.J. Crowder <
tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:

> Happy with `neq`.
>
> > Up to date, the only keyword
> > operators have been exclusively unary, such as `typeof`, `await`,
> > and `yield`.
>
> Not quite. :-) As I mentioned when suggesting them originally, there is
> *one* binary non-symbolic operator already: `in`
>
> ```js
> if ("foo" in obj)
> ```
>
> So the concept of non-symbolic binary operators isn't entirely new to the
> parsing/grammar infrastructure.
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
>
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So far, the only decent proposal I've seen here is the keyword
>> operator idea. It looks operator-y, and it actually reads like what
>> you expect. Few nits about the general idea, and most of these would
>> probably keep TC39 from considering them:
>>
>> 1. `neq` is better than `noteq`. 2 fewer characters for a common
>> operation.
>>
>> 2. JS is a weakly typed language, and coerces nearly everything. It
>> normally calls `.valueOf()` (if it exists) and coerces the result to
>> numbers for the comparison operators. Strong type checking has
>> generally only been reserved for scenarios that can't be optimized
>> well otherwise (like the length of typed arrays) or that require
>> specific guarantees that coercion prevents (like uniqueness for weak
>> collections).
>>
>> 3. TypeScript and Flow both literally don't have this issue at all,
>> and several members of TC39 actively use these in mission-critical
>> code.
>>
>> 4. JS has historically *avoided* keyword operators, electing to remain
>> close-ish to its curly brace and punctuation-driven roots. Consider
>> `=>`, `&&` and `||`, `function *`, etc. Up to date, the only keyword
>> operators have been exclusively unary, such as `typeof`, `await`, and
>> `yield`. So this would face a potentially steep slope to acceptance.
>>
>> Just a bit of pessimistic pragmatism here.
>> -----
>>
>> Isiah Meadows
>> me at isiahmeadows.com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:33 PM, doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I prefer the idea of keyword operators, like :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > a lt 1 // strict < 1
>> >
>> > a lte 1 // strict <=1
>> >
>> > a gt 1 // strict > 1
>> >
>> > a gte 1 // strict >= 1
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That’s easier to understand and memorize.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Dawid Szlachta [mailto:dawidmj.szlachta at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:12 AM
>> > To: Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Strict Relational Operators
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The =@=@= operator is probably easier to add and won't break the web.
>> Also,
>> > some basic pattern matching for functions would be useful and time
>> saving
>> > feature:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > es-discuss mailing list
>> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170415/0b3bcacd/attachment.html>