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: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 19:58:23 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <87pn416wf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <type-style-20201123132025@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <g50orfttg03lruckcm11jkj0anf2h01ern@4ax.com> <87eekjrfz0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1gkqrft95t0ke57qb3qfo27mmtuqdbqh8b@4ax.com> <87mtz6a06s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <u3usrfhp2olemgck4460la9iqod77rinm1@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b3c98be523f7b25b6283cdd761443dc8"; logging-data="25215"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FDRnU3eTSGzIy7+btOBjSoENatN/IIlw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hIw8egGq+bgZQgySC/Eh3fSyzvs= sha1:dQHNOmNO7SlFQ9ehLpZrcEQUBwU=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.fe6c8502519d50b6f5cf.20201125195823GMT.87pn416wf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:39195

John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 21:56:27 +0000, Ben Bacarisse
> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 20:11:15 +0000, Ben Bacarisse
>>> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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, though I wasn't sure what the original intention was supposed to
>>> be.
>>>
>>>   var x = 2;
>>>   "" + x + 4       // "24"
>>> and
>>>   var x = 2;
>>>   "" + (x + 4)     // "6"
>>>
>>> both make the intention clear. Other variants belong in an obscuration
>>> contest, and nowhere else.
>>
>>But since this is not what the code was doing, that seems to be a
>>premature judgement.  How should the original be written so as to avoid
>>your opprobrium?
>
> All right, here are all the gory details :
>
>   var x = "2";
>   "" + ((+x) + 4)  // "6"
>
> This separates the various kinds of action being performed. If +x is
> not a common idiom in the development team then the rather cumbersome
> Number(x) replaces it.

Thanks.  Obviously we have very different views of what looks obscure.
I like the left-to-right clarity of

  +x + 4 + ""

but I won't argue it.

-- 
Ben.