Modulo Operator %%

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 17:11:50 UTC 2019


To me there's no risk, as MooTools, Prototype, and Scriptacolous are both
things of the past, and never implemented Math.mod ... so, with that
approach, custom transpiling functions are more dangerous, as somebody
might have implemented `%%` already for other purposes, and we break Babel
outcome adding new syntax anyway ... the smoosh accident, is the equivalent
of custom Babel utilities these days.

Look at TypeScript and the private class fields, if you want to compare new
syntax instead

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:50 PM Michael Haufe <tno at thenewobjective.com>
wrote:

> Thursday, August 15, 2019 2:47 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>
>
> > FWIW another disadvantage is that operators cannot be polyfilled, so
> it'll take forever for those not using transpilers to adopt these, while
> having a `Math,mod` would work right away
>
>
>
>
>
> With such an approach there is risk of another ‘smooshgate’ [1][2]. There
> is nothing stopping those developers from using a function anyway to bridge
> the gap if they can’t or won’t use a compiler. This is already the current
> state of affairs.
>
>
>
> [1] https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/03/smooshgate
>
> [2]
> https://adamsilver.io/articles/the-disadvantages-of-javascript-polyfills/
>
>
>
> Michael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20190815/3b4007cf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list