On Sep 6, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 6, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Jürg Lehni wrote: > >> I agree it's a good name, but how about Object.isIdentical? Wouldn't that >> follow existing naming conventions more closely? > > It would following the verg-object-noun-phrase convention, but we have more > than one convention. > > Note how isNaN(x) and isFinite(x) are functions taking one parameter. Whereas > Object.identical(a, b) tests whether two values *are* identical. Does "is" > work still? Could we dodge the issue (as well as the implied preposition > "to": isIdenticalTo) by using Jeff's "identical" suggestion? > > A pure OOP (single receiver) naming convention as in Smalltalk might favor a > isIdenticalTo: b (if it didn't use an operator symbol, as IIRC Smalltalk did: > ==), but Object.identical is really a function (static method of Object, > simply to avoid name pollution in any other object). Object.identical(a, b) > seems better to me than any longer name involving "is" and/or "To". > > For single-parameter tests, "is" or "has" followed by a NounPhrase is indeed > the dominant naming convention. For a dyadic function to pair with > Object.hashcode, Object.identical still seems best to me. The only other > verb-free thought is to use the language in the ES5 spec (9.12) and call it > Object.sameValue.
You could make it Object.areIdentical(a, b), but I don't think that reads very well. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
