On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:51 PM T.J. Crowder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Alex Vincent <[email protected]> wrote: > > In Linux programming, #!/bin/bash is very commonly the first line of a > shell > > script. In Python, we have #!/bin/python, or #!/bin/perl. The #! > characters > > are pronounced "she-bang", because # is pronounced "hash" and ! is > > pronounced "bang". > > Indeed. But in JavaScript (and Java and C and C# and...), `!` is "not", > and I for one read it that way when reading anything other than bash > script. I don't read `!==` as "bang equal," either. (Which in British > English would be really misleading...) > > And that's why I like the idea of `!in` (or `notin`), because I'd much > rather read and write "if property not in object" than "if not property in > object" (and don't get me started on the parens required to make it work > :-) ). > > To me, `!in` or `notin` or whatever you want makes perfect sense, just > like we have `!=` and `!==`. It's like not having `!==` and then arguing we > don't need to have it because after all, you can write `n != 1` as `!(n == > 1)`. > > Heck, all we really need is NAND gates, right? ;-) > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: > > So I agree this is a Really Bad Idea™, for this above if not the Kotlin > > reference. > > I strongly disagree it's a Really Bad Idea™. I think it's a Moderately > Good Idea On The Whole™. And `!in` is fine by me but I'm also happy with > `notin` or whatever. > I agree with all your arguments about why it's more ergonomic, but I keep coming back to what Naveen said: "I don't use `in`." I think `in` is the wrong operator to make more convenient, except as part of a more general cleanup to provide inverted forms of boolean infix operators. Usually, where I see `in` I would prefer that the author had used hasOwnProperty. And usually where I see (foo.hasOwnProperty(p)), I would prefer the author wrote Reflect.apply(hasOwnProperty, foo, [p]). What are the use cases for `in` that would not be better served by an ergonomic, infix hasOwnProperty? I just don't expect it to happen. Too much inertia to add it > after-the-fact, and too many bigger fish to fry. :-) > > -- T.J. Crowder > _______________________________________________ > 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
