FW: Re: Strict Relational Operators

[Isiah Meadows]

Okay, I stand corrected... (I forgot about those)

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017, 04:01 Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170415/58689c24/attachment-0001.html>