On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a problem with || indeed. The question is whether the solution > should equate null and undefined. CoffeeScript chose the > conceal-the-difference path and it has users. The users who want null to be > distinct from undefined are neither CoffeeScript users, nor || users (in > their defaulting code). They must be doing === undefined test. That is rare > too (not quite as rare as passing null instead of undefined as intentional > default trigger in my experience). > > What is your reason for preferring === undefined over == null, since we have > a dilemma and users often use an even looser (falsy, viz ||) test than == > null, but some use == null and others use === undefined, for the defaulting > trigger?
I don't claim to be typical in cases like this, but my experience is similar to Herby's - I use || most of the time just because it's short and easy, but switch to "x === undefined" with a trinary if x might be falsey. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
