Re: throwif operator

I'd like `throw` expressions (a lot). I wouldn't use them for this, but I want them for many of the same reasons outlined in the C# case for them. -- T.J. Crowder On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Ron Buckton wrote: > I’d much rather see something more like C# 7’s

Re: Re: Strict Relational Operators

Maybe every operator can have a non-coercing variant? One possible syntax is to have a modifier on operators x = a (<) b (+) c (&&) (!)d; if (x (!=) y) ... Another possible syntax is to have a modifier on expressions x = #(a < b + c && !d) if #(x != y) ... On Tue, Apr 11, 2017

Re: Re: Strict Relational Operators

Although I’m unsure if this is wise given there are already eleven symbols that are combinations of `=` and `<`/`>`, for symmetry with `==` and `===` I’d imagine something like this: ``` COERCIVE STRICT > =>= < =<= >==>== <==<== ``` Could also follow the pattern

RE: throwif operator

I’d much rather see something more like C# 7’s throw expressions: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/csharp/whats-new/csharp-7#throw-expressions ```js // original example fs.writeFile("message.txt", "Hello Node.js", err => err ? throw err : console.log("The file has been saved.");

Re: Strict Relational Operators

It's definitely an interesting idea... Been trying to consider what character would be added to represent a strict comparison... Perhaps @? >@ <@ <=@ >=@ ... Not sure how this might conflict with decorators... -- Michael J. Ryan - track...@gmail.com - http://tracker1.info Please excuse

Re: MultiLineCommentChars and PostAsteriskCommentChars productions

Thanks for explaining, Michael. That does make sense, there are indeed plenty of places where such distinctions must be made for syntactic productions. I’m not sure why I was assumed the lexical grammar was special in this regard; it just happens to be that the only other similar case has the

Re: throwif operator

I don't think we need a new keyword for this, both because of Elie's point about handling it with a `throwif` function, and because Node's callback pattern is a bit old-fashioned in the world of promises and async/await. Until the Node API is updated to support promises natively, you can use one

Re: throwif operator

const throwIf = (fn) => (err, ...args) => { if(err) throw err; return fn(...args); }; ... fs.writeFile('message.txt', 'Hello Node.js', throwIf(() => console.log('The file has been saved'))); No need to extend the language and preempt keywords with stuff you can very easily implement in

throwif operator

An example from node.js documentation: fs.writeFile('message.txt', 'Hello Node.js', (err) => { if (err) throw err; console.log('The file has been saved!'); }); This looks like a common way to handle errors when the first parameter is an instance of Error. Yes, this line of code is short and