New Assignment Operators (Not bit-wise OR)

I've seen a lot of code using an extra type to have as a fallback. This to me seems like not a very good way of putting use of the logical OR. Here's an example: `var itemList = itemList || 'something went extremely wrong'` This is a really hacky way of doing things. I don't think you should ass

Re: New Assignment Operators (Not bit-wise OR)

erns > as well as made it clear that it had located and addressed all prior > concerns on the subject, such as the ones linked above. > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 6:21 AM, even stensberg > wrote: > >> I've seen a lot of code using an extra type to have as a fallback. Th

Re: New Assignment Operators (Not bit-wise OR)

at 9:42 PM, even stensberg wrote: > Could we use XOR? We would set the variable to false by default, meaning > if it doesn't contain any values, it will return the OR property. By > example: > > true is a string and boolean in the first example and boolean in the other > one.

Re: New Assignment Operators (Not bit-wise OR)

ation or a default value? > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:21 AM, even stensberg > wrote: > >> I've seen a lot of code using an extra type to have as a fallback. This >> to me seems like not a very good way of putting use of the logical OR. >> Here's an ex

Reflect.create()

Before going further, please note that feedback will be on Github, since we want to avoid spamming in ES Discuss in order to provide a much cleaner system. I wrote up a draft about how I'd like this to look at: https://github.com/ev1stensberg/proposal-reflect-or, please note that I humbly accept a

Re: Reflect.create()

is something I'd be up for! ( Also, if you got a proposal, I'd like to hear). Is there anything else I missed? Even On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Bergi wrote: > even stensberg wrote: > > I wrote up a draft about how I'd like this to look at: >> https://github.c

Re: Reflect.create()

Yeah, the conversation was about vanilla js, and this links to that. We want `Reflect.create` to be a solution instead of writing `var DefaultValue = DefaultValue || SomeOtherValue`. That is what the medium article was about. And that was what the medium article was about, of which Brendan was ag

Re: Reflect.create()

That's one of the reasons why GitHub is a better place to discuss this ;) As I tried to say, this is work in progress, meaning I'd like input on this as well as improvements on the actual proposal. As by last line, what is it that you don't understand? Hit me up at GitHub and I'll try to clear th

Re: Reflect.create()

you should slow down and think things > through more. > > R. > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:25 AM, even stensberg > wrote: > >> That's one of the reasons why GitHub is a better place to discuss this ;) >> >> As I tried to say, this is work in progres

Re: Reflect.create()

> > R. > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:25 AM, even stensberg > wrote: > >> That's one of the reasons why GitHub is a better place to discuss this ;) >> >> As I tried to say, this is work in progress, meaning I'd like input on >> this as well as

Re: Reflect.create()

of the language up to a certain > level before jumping into the water. This is something only you can help > yourself. > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:08 AM, even stensberg > wrote: > >> Is there anything bad about getting feedback before reiteration? This was >> m

Re: Re: Extended dot notation (pick notation) proposal

I think that for now, personally, this should be in userland. Currently, making your own functions provides much more flexibility than the need of the operator in general. What I mean by that, is that in traditional ways, you'd have the need to pick your values of either an array or object by yours