On 16 May 2014 15:08, "Rick Waldron" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I imagined .= would do both, but I don't think my suggestion should be taken >> > seriously. In fact, your example illustrates a major flaw (that exists in >> > either proposal/suggestion), that I don't immediately know how I would >> > answer: >> > >> > var o = { foo: "bar" }; >> > o .= foo; >> > >> > Is `o` now a string with the value "bar"?? I think that would cause more >> > problems than its worth. >> >> Yes, that's exactly what it would do. This sort of pattern is even >> reasonably common when doing tree-walking, for example: you see a lot >> of "node = node.left;" or whatnot. > > > In your example, is it safe to assume that `node.left` is a node? I'm familiar with this precedent on a daily basis ;) It was the "object becomes a string" behaviour that I was objecting to.
I'm not a fan of objects becoming strings either, but that problem exists with methods as well: var foo = ["bar", "baz"]; foo .= join(); However, I don't think it's a problem introduced by this proposal, nor addressible by it, but rather by something like guards: var foo : Array = ["bar", "baz"]; foo .= join(); // Error - Jussi > > Rick > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
