Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #39185
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Writing type conversions |
| Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2020 11:48:22 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 30 |
| Message-ID | <87ft4zasc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <type-style-20201123132025@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <g50orfttg03lruckcm11jkj0anf2h01ern@4ax.com> <87eekjrfz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i23vpaFkcrpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| Injection-Info | reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="af43d4f48e27ea0e6f4a2239942bca67"; logging-data="14947"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U3h3LvNluMrIrbeDHWxL5QQ5fx2OWj+s=" |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:jPijRcgmb5scn7b3/oYF5c3eHNA= sha1:6ER1j7ab8UMPhLvgZKfv1Bg3H6c= |
| X-BSB-Auth | 1.90838ff958202ad83717.20201124114822GMT.87ft4zasc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:39185 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> writes: > Ben Bacarisse: > >> John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 23 Nov 2020 12:29:27 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) >>> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>>> However, in the Java world many deemed »+ ""« to be bad >>>> style because it does not express the intent of the >>>> programmer to convert something to a string but would >>>> mystify the reader. I do not share this point of view, >>>> however, because I think the intent of »+ ""« is clear. >>> >>> "" + x + 1 >>> makes it more obvious. >> >> Am I missing a joke? (It does something else altogether.) > > No - this is not a joke. Since JavaScript is loosely typed, the > expression "" + x + 1 is totally valid I know. I was asking if I was missing a joke in the suggestion that "" + x + 1 is a more obvious way to write +x + 1 + "". They do different things. -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Writing type conversions John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-11-23 18:34 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-11-23 20:11 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2020-11-24 09:49 +0100
Re: Writing type conversions Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2020-11-24 10:58 +0100
Re: Writing type conversions Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2020-11-24 18:56 +0100
Re: Writing type conversions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-11-24 11:48 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-11-24 18:34 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-11-24 21:56 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-11-25 15:32 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-11-25 10:29 -0800
Re: Writing type conversions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-11-25 19:58 +0000
Re: Writing type conversions Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-11-26 16:47 -0800
Re: Writing type conversions Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2020-11-24 09:56 +0100
csiph-web