for correctness sake, I forgot to check `this.every()` after a `this.length === collection.length && this.every(...)`
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > I think there are cases where the intent of `==` can be clear such Point2D > or Point3D comparison, as well as generic collections. > > In this case I am simulating though `hasSamecontentOf` method what I think > would be nice simplifying via `==` > > ```javascript > > function Collection(entries) { > this.push.apply(this, entries); > } > > Collection.prototype = Object.setPrototypeOf( > { > constructor: Collection, > hasSameContentOf: function (collection) { > return this.every(this._sameContentOf, collection); > }, > _sameContentOf: function (entry, i) { > return entry === this[i]; > // or a more generic and unoptimized > // return -1 < this.indexOf(entry); > } > }, > Array.prototype > ); > > var > a = new Collection([1, 2, 3]), > b = new Collection([1, 2, 3]), > c = new Collection(a) > ; > > alert( > a.hasSameContentOf(b) && > b.hasSameContentOf(c) > ); > > ``` > > In JS world we are "use to" compare via === so that when == is used > instead we are usually in "power user land", I don't see any conceptual > shenanigans in doing something like above code. > > Long story short: > > `point2Da.x === point2Db.x && point2Da.y === point2Db.y` > > all over the code, if somehow necessary, would probably not look as nice > as `pointa == pointb` > > > Being something new not possible in ES5 or ES3, I don't even see side > effects or regressions that could affect old code: no oervload of `==` > would be present so we are back to the good old known `==` meaning. > > > my 2 cents > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> In the worst case, when I don't know if I have a string or an URLUtils >>> object, I just ensure that at least one member of the equality operator is >>> stringified—and, most importantly, that it is evident from reading my code >>> that one member is stringified: >>> >>> a.href == url >>> String(whatever) == url >>> >> >> Is an equality operator which requires one to remember such details a >> good, dependable equality operator? Does it really even express a >> meaningful concept of "equality"? >> >> Attaching more nuance on top of "==" via overloading seems like it will >> make things worse, not better. >> >> Brendan, can you provide a value class example which includes a >> user-defined "=="? I'd like to see it in context. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
