> There are lots of subsets in the language already, this is a teaching and > user preference outcome that we can't and shouldn't stop. Multiple paradigms > and well-ordered subsets are not a problem, they are a success condition. > But adding operators without considering first-class value types (==/=== and > literal syntax) looks like a mistake.
This is the critical point. Do you want operator overloading to extend to classic objects (that is, instances of user-defined functions) or to be restricted to the values/classes/types subset? That's not as much a technical discussion but a question of design philosophy. I assumed that integration with the existing language was desirable. If not then the proposal is moot. > No, because for two numbers a and b, a == b <=> a === b. In fact for any two > values, (typeof a == typeof b && a == b) <=> a === b. If we want to support > usable numeric and similar "scalar" type extensions, we might want to preserve > this logic. (I forgot to respond to this from a previous message) What does "usable" mean? If operators did work for classic objects why not use them for scalars? There's === but I don't know why you would want it to be anything other than object identity. Is anybody relying on (typeof a == typeof b && a == b) <=> a === b? _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
