if you are not sure and you expect == to act like === within objects / types then just use === and leave == for checks behind the typoef as Brendan said.
Once again, let power users have the control they'd like to, specifications should not prevent people from shooting their foot when/if they want/need to ;-) it's not a spec matter, still IMO On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> > If you know the operand types already, then there's no problem. But in > cases where you don't control the operand types how will you know the > semantics that "==" will provide? What does the following mean? > > if (maybeCollection1 == maybeCollection2) { ... } > > >> Operators overload worked for power users in many other languages and I >> think if not abused it can be very handy. >> > > In general, I agree. But in the specific case of "==" I'm not sure we > have a solid foundation to build upon. How do you meaningfully overload a > language element that, arguably, carries no useful meaning? > > >> >> Once again, just my 2 cents >> > > Mine too - we need to wait for a proposal before going any further. > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
