On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Kyle Simpson wrote: >> Your suggestion to change the ternary operator is interesting but >> creates incompatibility. It is not feasible. > > I'm curious what "incompatibility" you mean? If we're talking about backwards > compatibility... of course. But a lot of the ES-Harmony (and later) stuff is > of that same persuasion.
You must mean forward compatibility (sometimes called "upward compatibility"), the ability of old runtimes to execute new code. There is no backward compatibility issue ignoring code that fails due to early SyntaxErrors. > I'm simply saying if we're talking about adding sugar to these operators for > future versions of ES, this is one pattern I end up typing a LOT and it would > be helpful. Could you cite examples where you code this a LOT? (or even a LITTLE ;-). Thanks, /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
