Short Comparing proposal

[Bob Myers]

If you're worried about short-circuiting, then

```
[() => a, () => b].some(x => c === x())
```

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.
com> wrote:

> 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/20170204/14544e8d/attachment.html>