On 16 June 2012 01:44, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 15 June 2012 22:22, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org mailto:
bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
But aside from opinions and their
Brendan Eich wrote:
In fact, I don't think I was pushing any particular syntax. I think I
was clear about asking _whether_ people saw value in the semantics of
it, not the syntax. It's fine if people don't see value; is there a
problem with asking the question?
I was describing the hazards
Herby Vojčík wrote:
Brendan Eich wrote:
In fact, I don't think I was pushing any particular syntax. I think I
was clear about asking _whether_ people saw value in the semantics of
it, not the syntax. It's fine if people don't see value; is there a
problem with asking the question?
I was
I think the original thrust of this thread may have got lost a bit in the
(useful) discussion of null and undefined, so coming back to the original
point:
On 12 June 2012 16:29, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
In the current default operator strawman[1], the operator is ??, e.g.:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:28 AM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on a second ternary a'la the above (syntax
notwithstanding). So far we have only my opinion (I like it and would have
uses for it; I don't _need_ it), Brendan's (too thin)[1], and Herby's
On 15 June 2012 18:05, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com wrote:
Since you are asking for opinions.
I don't want it. It doesn't carry its own weight.
I was, and that includes opinions against. Thanks!
-- T.J.
___
es-discuss mailing list
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:28 AM, T.J. Crowdert...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion on a second ternary a'la the above (syntax
notwithstanding). So far we have only my opinion (I like it and would have
uses for it; I don't _need_ it), Brendan's (too
On 15 June 2012 22:22, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if wouldn't
hurt is the answer for syntax proposals.
Who said it was?
New syntax does hurt. It
T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 15 June 2012 22:22, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org
mailto:bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
If everyone's opinion carries weight, then we are tied :-P. Kidding.
But aside from opinions and their weight, we have a problem if
wouldn't hurt is the answer for syntax
Brendan Eich wrote:
* It brings new semantics not expressible in the language (let, const,
modules, generators).
* It is an affordance without new semantics for a common pattern
that's verbose and error-prone when open-coded.
Classes (maximally minimal, mainly for extends and super) is a
My two sense. In my experience (large applications, rather than tight
libraries), distinguishing between null and undefined is the exception, not
the rule. When it is distinguished, as often as not the author would be
more correct in either including null or making an property existence
check
In our experience writing large apps, the distinction is useful. Undefined
means I forgot to do something (e.g. set a property or pass an argument); null
means I tried to get something but it didn't exist.
Very roughly, it becomes undefined = caller error outside of my control, null =
my error
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
In our experience writing large apps, the distinction is useful.
Undefined means I forgot to do something (e.g. set a property or pass an
argument); null means I tried to get something but it didn't exist.
On Jun 14, 2012, at 14:03, Rick Waldron
waldron.r...@gmail.commailto:waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Domenic Denicola
dome...@domenicdenicola.commailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
In our experience writing large apps, the distinction is useful. Undefined
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:17 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Thaddee Tyl wrote:
My point still stands. Being undefined-specific is arbitrary.
CoffeeScript could have been undefined-specific; they were
undefined + null-specific, which I believe makes
Thaddee Tyl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:17 PM, David Hermandher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Thaddee Tyl wrote:
My point still stands. Being undefined-specific is arbitrary.
CoffeeScript could have been undefined-specific; they were
undefined + null-specific,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, non-existent properties are a use-case.
On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Thaddee Tyl wrote:
Besides, it often has a similar meaning: I have seen in a lot of code
a de-facto standard wherein null is used to indicate a value that is
voluntarily undefined. You can see this pattern all over node.js code,
for instance.
I *think* this is
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Okay, further testing shows that my knowledge was incomplete. Null
and undefined compare as double-equal, but neither are double-equal to
other falsey values.
This is intentional, believe it or don't :-P.
In ancient days, void 0 was the only way to spell undefined, and
In the current default operator strawman[1], the operator is ??, e.g.:
a = b ?? 5;
is shorthand for
a = b !== undefined ? b : 5;
Would it be possible to use ||| instead? E.g.:
a = b ||| 5;
I ask because I was planning (prior to knowing about this strawman!) to
suggest that, along with a
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com wrote:
In the current default operator strawman[1], the operator is ??, e.g.:
a = b ?? 5;
is shorthand for
a = b !== undefined ? b : 5;
I missed this discussion. What validates the introduction of this
syntax over the
If the above is this, absolutely and such a feature, I favor this as
Wow, something messed up big time.
If the above answer is this, absolute and such a feature is
seriously considered ...
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com
wrote:
In the current default operator strawman[1], the operator is ??, e.g.:
a = b ?? 5;
is shorthand for
a = b !== undefined ? b : 5;
I missed
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
undefined is special-cased here because it's an extremely common
value to check against. It's used when an argument isn't supplied, or
when you try to pull a non-existent property off of an object.
I believe the most
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Peter van der Zee e...@qfox.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, T.J. Crowder t...@crowdersoftware.com
wrote:
In the current default operator strawman[1], the operator is ??,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, non-existent properties are a use-case.
CoffeeScript provides a similar feature, but for null properties.
For example, the following:
o =
a: 1
b: 2
alert o.c?.d
compiles to:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Thaddee Tyl thaddee@gmail.com wrote:
On the other hand, non-existent properties are a use-case.
CoffeeScript provides a similar feature, but for null properties.
For example, the
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Thaddee Tyl wrote:
My point still stands. Being undefined-specific is arbitrary.
CoffeeScript could have been undefined-specific; they were
undefined + null-specific, which I believe makes more sense.
Can you make the full argument? I'm genuinely undecided on this
28 matches
Mail list logo
