On 03/16/2017 09:40 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Karl Cheng <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 17 March 2017 at 08:03, Ben Newman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Just to check my understanding, would
>
> Boolean.parseBoolean = function (value) {
> return !! (value && JSON.parse(String(value)));
> };
>
> be a reasonable polyfill for your proposed function?
Not quite -- that would throw for strings that are not valid JSON,
e.g.:
```
Boolean.parseBoolean('{dddddd]');
```
It'd probably be more like:
```
Boolean.parseBoolean = function (val) {
if (val === 'false') return false;
return !!val;
};
```
Looks good either (probably worth making case-insensitive).
There are many, many reasonable choices for a function that maps a
string to a boolean. Even more for a function that maps an arbitrary
value to a boolean. The choice of the function is highly context
dependent. That context includes language/locale/whatever the right l10n
term is. It's true that JS could arbitrarily pick one, but then it would
implicitly be favoring one context over another. And not even Node and
the Web would completely agree on the most appropriate definition. It
makes sense for JSON to pick a single function, because it's a specified
interchange format.
-1 from me.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
