我的英文水平太 low, 辅助机器翻译, 看双语版吧. __O_O__
To avoid misunderstanding caused by machine translation, I use bilingual.
> is already valid syntax in ECMAScript, and you can't change its semantics
> willy-nilly
首先, 这个提案要求更改语义才能实现静态类型. 如果这是绝对不允许的, 那这个提案应该被拒绝.
First of all, This proposal requires
ps: Accidentally, the email just sent was sent to isiah. This is a copy
TS/Flow is better about static type constraints.
If the syntax of TS/Flow can enter the proposal, I will not submit this
proposal.
The only benefits of this grammar are:
Even if the proposal cannot be passed, it will
Update
## Compatibility
For safety, it may be a good idea to use it with default values.
```js
let
isUndefined = void Number,
// Static type constraint does not take effect
isNumberUndefined = void(Number)|undefined;
// Static type constraint take effect
```
## Pending
I'm not
Consider the significance of this proposal from another perspective:
1. It is a native ECMAScript
1. It can be regarded as an enhanced version of asm.js
1. It has always existed, but it has been neglected and has not been fully
utilized.
1. The cost is much lighter than adding a new grammar
1.
> ```js
> function CustomNumber(x = void([Number, mod.BigNumber]) || 42) {
> // ...
> }
> ```
>
> which is arguably awkward.
Easy, change the word well.
```js
function CustomNumber(x = typeof([Number, mod.BigNumber]) && 42) {
// ...
}
```
___
You mean this...
The original:
```js
function f(x) {
return typeof x !== 'string' || typeof x === 'undefined';
}
```
The proposal:
```js
function f(x = void String) {
void Boolean; // The complete code should be like this
return typeof x !== 'string' || typeof x === 'undefined';
}
```
I also want to see a better way.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> A separate question is, how would String cover strings across realms,
> considering that 'abc' instanceof String already returns false even in the
> same realm?
There is no such way in the proposal.
提案中没有这样的写法.
The real purpose of the expression in void is not the operation.
It is
Or enable both versions at the same time?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
The typeof version does have this problem.
So, how to choose?
Maintain the original semantics of the word?
Or define new semantics for void?
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Strictly speaking, the behavior is different.
However, can you provide me with a real, conflicting example?
Or you give me an example, I write a version of the proposal, you can test
whether it is really harmful.
If it is finally proved that the semantics are different, but it is indeed
This is easy to solve, we change the word. But the code will be longer.
The original:
```js
function f(x) {
return typeof x !== 'string' || typeof x === 'undefined';
}
```
The proposal: typeof version
```js
function f(x = typeof(String) && undefined ) { // Attention can not be omitted:
&&
12 matches
Mail list logo
