If you're worried about short-circuiting, then ``` [() => a, () => b].some(x => c === x()) ```
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:29 AM, T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Bob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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? >> > > Well, or as the originator of the thread pointed out, `[a, > b].includes(object.property.secondProp)`. > > As I pointed out earlier in the thread, I think the only real > justification for syntax for this would be short-circuiting (lazy > evaluation of the possible values to be matched against). For my part, I'm > not at all sure it's a sufficient one for new syntax. > > -- T.J. >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
