Small Proposal "!in"

Ben Wiley therealbenwiley at
Wed Jul 11 15:47:19 UTC 2018

I find the juxtaposition of a symbol operator against an English operator a
bit odd, but I think most English speakers pronounce "!" as "not" so you
might not have so much to worry about..

Le mer. 11 juill. 2018 11 h 24, Alex Vincent <ajvincent at> a écrit :

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at>
>> To: Jordan Harband <ljharb at>
>> Cc: "es-discuss at" <es-discuss at>
>> Bcc:
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:23:03 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Small Proposal "!in"
>> and, as previously mentioned, `!obj.x` might have side effects through
>> the accessor, as example in every lazily defined property that would be
>> early defined (or anything else behind a getter that could do more than
>> just telling the property is there and it's not truthy).
> Peanut gallery observation: I personally think !in is a Really Bad Idea,
> or at least I'm not convinced that it's particularly useful.  If it is
> useful, then let one of the transpiling languages like CoffeeScript or
> TypeScript demonstrate it first.
> Also, there's the little matter of pronunciation.  I admit to a bit of
> snarkiness when I first saw this proposal, but I didn't expect it to have
> any traction.  So I'll just say it:  do we really want JavaScript to be a
> "bangin' " language?
> Alex
> --
> "The first step in confirming there is a bug in someone else's work is
> confirming there are no bugs in your own."
> -- Alexander J. Vincent, June 30, 2001
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list