I'm puzzled about what's wrong with the good old `[a, b].some(x => x === object.property.secondProp)`. If you insist on sugarizing this (but why?), then it could be `[a, b].some(=== object.property.secondProp)`, or even `[a, b].||(=== object.property.secondProp)`. But again, why?
If you really want to write `<|(||`, I suggest you switch to APL. -- Bob On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sendil Kumar N < [email protected]> wrote: > This is a far more useful option and more sugary syntax. We can use `<| ` as > an identifier. > > ``` > > // <| ( operator, arguments ) > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|(||, 'a' , 'b')) { > // do Something > } > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|(&&, 'a' , 'b')) { > > // do Something > } > > ``` > > In case of testing nested > > ``` > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|((||, 'a' ,(&&, 'c' , 'b'))) { > // do Something > } > > ``` > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
