I'm not even sure it goes so far as that. Most likely those currently attempting to sue this syntax have realized that it is relatively inconsistent for non-truthy values and given up, but the sentiment (I suppose) is that even the sub-1% that are actually using this in a live/production setting are too many to break.
Also, I've never in my life apologized for punctuation indicating appropriate levels of excitement, but I did try and edit the title and found myself incapable of doing so. So, if anyone who has control over the ability to edit this site is reading this or anyone knows who I can contact to normalize the title, know that I would prefer it be changed. On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the main issue with this idea, based on that thread, is the burden > of proof it won't break the Web. No one seems to have actually tested it, > yet. I don't know of any obfuscators that emit that from a transform (they > only emit it if that was in the input), so my heuristic is that it likely > won't break 90% of sites, but even then, 10% of the Internet broken is > still far too breaking. > > Also, as a side note, -1 on the exclamation points for the subject. > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015, 12:16 Joseph Groseclose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> At some length I see, heh. Alright, I guess that just about sums it up. >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Claude Pache <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> For an old discussion on the same subject, see: >>> >>> >>> https://esdiscuss.org/topic/chained-comparisons-from-python-and-coffeescript >>> >>> —Claude >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
