well ... I was asking indeed why that was not even an option ... is not half backed being typeof the most used check ever for arguments and variables but I got your point :-)
br On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> then how about forgetting ducks and classes, going typeof without >> implicit cast? >> > > No. > > Why the desperation to get something -- *anything* -- even a half-baked > idea based on broken old typeof? Where's the fire? > > Sorry, at this point in the thread I have to start pushing back! > > > function doStuff(i:number, key:string, u:undefined, b:boolean, >> fn:function):object {} >> >> where `null` will still be under the object type. >> >> Would this be a decent compromise or a pointless effort for no benefits? >> > > The latter -- sorry, have to call it as I see it. You've heard from > Andreas, Alex, and Allen too. > > Types are hard. This doesn't mean "no, never". But big brains are still > researching the general topic, and btw what Dart has can't be called types > according to the researchers and literature I trust. > > be > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
