I agree, it's very annoying to have to write it !(x in y). I've been
wanting this operator for a very, very long time.
If there is interest for !in, I think !instanceof deserves to be included
too.
Le jeu. 28 juin 2018 à 18:19, T.J. Crowder
a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Tobias
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:14 PM, Tobias Buschor
wrote:
> I dont like to write:
> if ( !('x' in obj) && !('y' in obj) ) {
> doit()
> }
>
> I was even tempted to write it that way:
> if ('x' in obj || 'y' in obj) { } else {
> doit()
> }
There's
```js
if (!('x' in obj || 'y' in
I dont like to write:
if ( !('x' in obj) && !('y' in obj) ) {
doit()
}
I was even tempted to write it that way:
if ('x' in obj || 'y' in obj) { } else {
doit()
}
What about a !in operator to write it like this?
if ('x' !in obj && 'y' !in obj) {
doit()
}
*An errata in my code*
The getter is mutating the object with a enumerable property, so
consecutives invocations of JSON.stringify will result different from
the first call (if the property is yet not initialized). The current
problem is:
```js
JSON.stringify(foo) // Returns "{"bar":3}"
// After
4 matches
Mail list logo
