I would pick === without a doubt.
One may consider providing some form of optional syntax to do this like {b
~: 5} but I think that the safe way should be the default way.
If the decision is made to support both strict comparisons and the silly
ones (I'm a bit biased :p ) there could beseveral ways to fix this.Den 30 juni 2017 17:26 skrev "Sebastian Malton" <[email protected]>: > A question though, would this be equivalent to == or === matching for > specific values? > > Namely does {b: 5} match with a passed in object that has {b:'5'}? > > Sebastian > > *From:* [email protected] > *Sent:* June 30, 2017 11:22 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Pattern matching? > > Yes :) > > This is roughly what I had in mind: > > match obj with > {a, b : 5} -> return a + b > {a, c : {d, e : true}} -> return a + d > 'rof' -> return 'lol' > > Where the first clause matches if obj has the property a and the property > b that has the value 5. > The second clause works the same but recursively. > And the third simply checks if obj is equal to 'rof'. > > > Den 30 juni 2017 16:46 skrev "Sebastian Malton" <[email protected]>: > > Are you thinking kind of like Rust's match statement? I think that > something like that would be quite a good addition. > > Sebastian > > *From:* [email protected] > *Sent:* June 30, 2017 9:55 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Pattern matching? > > Why is there no support for pattern matching in JavaScript? > I would guess that it has been proposed before, and if so why hasn't it > been included? > > I have been thinking about it and I think it would integrate nicely into > JavaScript. > If it hasn't been proposed already I would propose it, and I would gladly > look into it more and try to examine what kind of semantics would be > suitable. > > Peace! > -- > Henrik "TheGrandmother" Sommerland > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
