Short Comparing proposal

[T.J. Crowder]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Bob Myers <rtm at gol.com> wrote:

> I'm puzzled about what's wrong with the good old `[a, b].some(x => x ===
> object.property.secondProp)`. If you insist on sugarizing this (but why?),
> then it could be `[a, b].some(=== object.property.secondProp)`, or even
> `[a, b].||(=== object.property.secondProp)`. But again, why?
>

Well, or as the originator of the thread pointed out, `[a,
b].includes(object.property.secondProp)`.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I think the only real justification
for syntax for this would be short-circuiting (lazy evaluation of the
possible values to be matched against). For my part, I'm not at all sure
it's a sufficient one for new syntax.

-- T.J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170203/59ca27f5/attachment.html>