I find the juxtaposition of a symbol operator against an English operator a bit odd, but I think most English speakers pronounce "!" as "not" so you might not have so much to worry about..
Le mer. 11 juill. 2018 11 h 24, Alex Vincent <[email protected]> a écrit : > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> >> To: Jordan Harband <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Bcc: >> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:23:03 +0200 >> Subject: Re: Small Proposal "!in" >> and, as previously mentioned, `!obj.x` might have side effects through >> the accessor, as example in every lazily defined property that would be >> early defined (or anything else behind a getter that could do more than >> just telling the property is there and it's not truthy). >> > > Peanut gallery observation: I personally think !in is a Really Bad Idea, > or at least I'm not convinced that it's particularly useful. If it is > useful, then let one of the transpiling languages like CoffeeScript or > TypeScript demonstrate it first. > > Also, there's the little matter of pronunciation. I admit to a bit of > snarkiness when I first saw this proposal, but I didn't expect it to have > any traction. So I'll just say it: do we really want JavaScript to be a > "bangin' " language? > > Alex > > -- > "The first step in confirming there is a bug in someone else's work is > confirming there are no bugs in your own." > -- Alexander J. Vincent, June 30, 2001 > _______________________________________________ > 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
