Tobie,
Do you have any input on this?
Yes, I'm in favor of strict equality.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to
There seems to be more support for strict equality, so I'll write up a patch
with that and modify some test cases around the change.
Allen Madsen
http://www.allenmadsen.com
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com wrote:
Tobie,
Do you have any input on this?
Re: Array.uniq and Array.include and '==':
There's a bug in the existing Array.uniq where [false, 0].uniq()
returns [false]. I would prefer '===' for Array.include.
See:
http://prototype.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8886/tickets/786-optimize-arrayuniq-to-return-in-on-time
From my perspective, I never use arrays to store objects of different types
(I think that sort of thing belongs in an object of its own). So in theory I
don't particularly care either way. However, == seems to be the standard way
since many methods use include, which uses ==, or use == directly. I
On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, Allen bla...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I was looking into some of the array methods and noticed this
inconsistency. [1].without(1);
[]
[1].intersect([1]);
[]
Basically, without uses an == comparison, whereas intersect uses an
=== comparison. IMHO, I think == is more
