Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:28 AM, T.J. Crowder<t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on a second ternary a'la the above (syntax
notwithstanding). So far we have only my opinion (I like it and would have
uses for it; I don't _need_ it), Brendan's ("too thin")[1], and Herby's
("wouldn't hurt")[2].
Since you are asking for opinions.
I don't want it. It doesn't carry its own weight.
If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if "wouldn't
hurt" is the answer for syntax proposals. New syntax does hurt. It hurts
by requiring a transpiler or full compiler to target old browsers. It
hurts if it's botched, because you cannot polyfill to patch it. It costs
inordinately compared to deferring and seeing if enough use-cases arise.
So the summary (sorry if it didn't do Herby's position justice; I'm
using it as a whipping boy here) of "wouldn't hurt" is simply not an
argument for new operators to shorten hard cases.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
