It seems like a far more useful proposal (although much larger in scope) would be some concept of interface comparison, and then you could see if `object` matches "an interface that has an `a` and `b` property", but also if `object` is "arraylike", or "iterable", or a "thenable", etc.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:46 AM, T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Jeremy Darling <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This is an interesting concept, but reuse of ()'s and : will make it >> difficult to pin down, scale to other operators and communicate. Really >> the "inclusion" operator needs to be something that stands out, doesn't >> break existing spec, and won't kill new specs. >> > > Completely agreed. The trick is finding that something. We're definitely > out of single-character options, so something along the lines you describe > would be better. `$` is probably not going to be an option as the lead > character, as it's an identifier character. > > I don't know how the process works, though. Is it too early to be thinking > about syntax? The first question probably has to be whether it's worth > exploring new syntax in this area at all, *then* exploring what that syntax > might be... > > -- T.J. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
