it's transparent for the user and your example assumes nobody overwrote `Object.prototype.toString/valueOf`
That example is a crazy assumption for many reasons and the correct check would be eventually via `toString.call(object)`, well still hoping nobody changed native `toString`, of course, but you know what I mean. If power users would like to compare via == when they are aware of operator overload for used classes then I don't see any problem. Operators overload worked for power users in many other languages and I think if not abused it can be very handy. Once again, just my 2 cents On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > Only power users use "==" because it has weird conversion semantics that > are hard to internalize. "==" doesn't map to any simple relational > concept, certainly not "equality": > > ({}) == "[object Object]"; // true > > So if a user is going to overload "==", are they going to maintain those > bizarre semantics? If so, then crazy-pants. If not, then it seems like we > have introduced a hazard into code that is generic with respect to the > types of operands to which "==" is applied. Sometimes crazy conversion > semantics, sometimes sensible equality semantics. > > I'll stop there, because I don't know the details of the proposal. > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
