> > For me, `hasOwn` with the different operand order isn't a problem, but >> others may take a different view. Trying to keep the same order takes us >> down a route like `inOwn` which I can't say I care for. >> > > Nor me. I would argue for `on` (`'a' on b`), but that is a huge typo > footgun (especially for Colemak users) and maybe isn't clear enough about > its semantics. I would argue that operators aren't camel cased in JS > though, so `hasown`/`inown`. >
For what it's worth I was also thinking of an "on" operator when reading this message, so this is intuitive to me. I also think that is a separate idea to propose though. Of couse the usage of `in` is most of the time is not recommended, but it >> has it place. >> > > What places does it have? > I remain unconvinced that `in` has significant enough use cases to warrant > high-level ergonomics > were it being proposed today. > > It exists, and it'll probably never be removed from the language, but I > don't think it should be taught > as a good part of the language, and linters should probably flag it. > Maybe a radical thought, but does this not apply to hasOwnProperty? If you have strong type management why test for a property? The one case I can think of is parsing JSON but I handle that with destructuring. Are there significant use cases for it? Should linters flag it?
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
