T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 14 June 2012 19:01, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
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.
Not quite. I use || whenever I can in my defaulting code, and I can
use it a lot (e.g., when the optional item must be an object). I only
use the long-winded version if I have to because 0, "", false, or null
is a valid possible value -- which is surprisingly rare. Hugely
looking forward to using ?? uniformly instead, but it's not accurate
to say that we who don't want undefined and null equated in this
context are therefore not using ||.
Good point, when you are dealing with an object or variable that you
"know" will be either undefined or a well-typed value, you can use ||.
But how do you know what is a "possible value"?
Wes testified elsewhere that he had latent bugs. I suspect many APIs
whose impls use || do.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
