I have a handfull of questions on this proposal as well: How would your proposal look with three or four things to check against? Would the collection of things to check against be a variable? Would this be syntactic sugar to the array includes method, or would this be something entirely new?
-Ryan Birmingham On 1 February 2017 at 12:03, Felipe Nascimento de Moura < [email protected]> wrote: > I see... > we could perhaps think on some other approach. > > What about: > if (obj.prop.prop ?== 'a' : 'b') > > This way, we have "?==", which is not too chocking once we already got > "!==", and this kinda prepares the engine to deal with the next values as > part of the comparison. > Also, feels familiar due to " something ? 'a' : 'b' " > > Personally, I don't feel that comfortable with this syntax. > We could think on different a token as well > > if (obj.prop.prop === (? 'a' : 'b')) // feels like a ternary, but without > the first statement > if (obj.prop.prop === ('a' | 'b'))) // could break the web once it is > already valid syntax (although not very used) > if (obj.prop.prop === ('a' :: 'b')) // perhaps a double colon > > Anyways, open for suggestions :) > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:48 PM Ryan Birmingham <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I like the idea, and I generally agree that your proposal would increase >> readability, but I'm not a fan of the colon in parenthesis. >> In this context, the colon looks like it should represent a member >> assignment of 'b' to 'a'. >> >> >> -Ryan Birmingham >> >> On 1 February 2017 at 11:27, Felipe Nascimento de Moura < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> I wonder if there is already a proposal for such thing or if it would be >> something interesting to be proposal: >> >> *The motivation:* >> Let's say you have an object whose property you want to compare to 'a' or >> 'b': >> >> ``` >> if (object.property.secondProp === 'a' || object.property.secondProp === >> 'b') { >> // do something >> } >> ``` >> >> *The proposal:* >> Now, with this syntax you would be able to perform such comparisons in a >> much simpler, better to read approach: >> >> ``` >> if (object.property.secondProp === ('a' : 'b')) { >> // do Something >> } >> ``` >> >> And with the advance of the Optional Chaining Operator >> <https://github.com/claudepache/es-optional-chaining> proposal, it would >> get even better, like so: >> >> ``` >> // this: >> if (object && >> object.property && >> (object.property.secondProp === 'a' || >> object.property.secondProp === 'b')) { >> // ... >> } >> >> // becomes this: >> if (object?.property?.secondProp === ('a' : 'b')) { ... } >> ``` >> >> *Alternatives:* >> I do know that we could accomplish that with other techniques, like: >> >> ``` >> ['a', 'b'].includes(object.property.secondProp) >> ``` >> >> I just think it might be counterintuitive and having a syntax for a >> "short comparing" would be better for reading and understanding. >> >> Would make ternary comparison even shorter, too: >> >> ``` >> let currentState = object.property.status === ('fail' : 'ok') ? 'done' : >> 'doing' >> ``` >> >> Please let me hear your thoughts on that :) >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
