Thanks! Although I think it is a value judgement about how much risk is worth how much reward, and which reward, so I wouldn't classify it as necessarily a complete set of criteria yet, but it is certainly in the right direction. And very interesting to me. Thank you.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 00:40, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > While correct, each case asked the browser makers to make a risky and > costly bet. When the risk was low and the payoff high, they've been great > at doing so. This one does not fall into the viable risk vs reward > territory. > > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:58 AM kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, there have been numerous backwards-incompatible changes to the >> language >> over the years. >> >> You can find a list of them in section E of the ECMAScript language >> standard. >> IIRC, that list is non-exhaustive. >> >> On Monday, February 3, 2020 6:35:12 PM CET Naveen Chawla wrote: >> > Thank you Claude! I did miss the point. >> > >> > Have there ever been "BC" breaks introduced into the language before? If >> > so, is there a sustainable standard for an "acceptable" one? >> > >> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 22:47, Claude Pache <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > Try typing `3 < 2 < 1` in the web console of your favourite browser, >> and >> > > see the result: it will evaluate to `true`. No, your browser isn’t >> buggy, >> > > it is just following blindly the semantics of `<`. >> > > >> > > Modifying the meaning of `3 < 2 < 1` in order to make it evaluating >> to >> > > `false` is a BC break. Is it acceptable? Dunno. >> > > >> > > —Claude >> > > >> > > Le 3 févr. 2020 à 15:23, Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> > > >> > > Hi! >> > > >> > > I didn't understand your reply. >> > > >> > > I think currently it would raise an error, because 1 < 2 < 3 is >> currently >> > > saying (probably) true < 3. >> > > >> > > But a "new" syntax could possibly parse that as a "chain" of >> comparisons. >> > > >> > > Would this be acceptable to introduce into JavaScript (just curious)? >> > > >> > > I've probably missed your point entirely, because I saw a short >> message "3 >> > > < 2 < 1 //true", and I've assumed you meant it in reverse. >> > > >> > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:12, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> 3 < 2 < 1; // true >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 3:03 AM Naveen Chawla <[email protected]> >> > >> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> Certain languages allow the expression 0<x<5. Does anybody know if >> this >> > >>> would be syntactically possible in JavaScript? Of course this would >> only >> > >>> apply for "if"/"while" statements. >> > >>> >> > >>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 22:41, Isiah Meadows < >> [email protected]> >> > >>> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>>> Still better to discuss it there - it's highly related to your >> > >>>> suggestion. And I'm pretty sure an issue already exists related to >> > >>>> that. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 09:06 Sultan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>>> The pattern matching proposal does not handles the mentioned case: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> switch(type) { case 0...5: } being the equivalent of switch(type) >> { >> > >>>>> case 0: case 1: case 2: case 3: case 4: case 5: } >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 7:36 PM Bruno Macabeus < >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >>>>>> I agree with Oriol. >> > >>>>>> We already have the proposal pattern matching, that has a very >> > >>>>>> similar effect. >> > >>>>>> I think that is better to improve pattern matching proposal in >> order >> > >>>>>> to be able to match using ranges (or at least check if it's good >> to >> > >>>>>> do) >> > >>>>>> instead of create a new proposal. >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 14:08, Oriol _ < >> [email protected]> >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> This sounds like >> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-pattern-matching >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> El 31/1/20 a les 10:57, Sultan ha escrit: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> For example, the following: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> switch (value) { >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> case 0...9: break >> > >>>>>>> case 'a'...'z': break >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> } >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>>>>> es-discuss mailing >> > >>>>>>> [email protected]:// >> mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-disc >> > >>>>>>> uss >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>>>>> 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 >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>>> es-discuss mailing list >> > >>>>> [email protected] >> > >>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >>>> >> > >>>> -- >> > >>>> ----- >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Isiah Meadows >> > >>>> [email protected] >> > >>>> www.isiahmeadows.com >> > >>>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>>> 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 >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, >> > >> --MarkM >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > es-discuss mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
