even stensberg (2016-05-26T21:57:29.000Z)
evenstensberg at gmail.com (2016-05-26T22:03:14.175Z)
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, of which Brendan was agreeing too. The rest of the discussion was about shaping the code into a proposal, which we didn't manage to do. In order for you to fully understand the context I have copy+pasted from MDN so you can stop arguing of how I wrote "it is not an object". In terms of how this is not an object, is that is doesn't give us a constructor or prototype(?) and it behaves statically in that matter. Unlike most global objects, Reflect is not a constructor. You can not use it with a new operator <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new> or invoke the Reflect object as a function. All properties and methods of Reflect are static (just like the Math <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math> object). I guess that this is repetition, but there's no wrong in saying this again. IMO. was bad typed by me there. By logical instance I mean that it should remove code with logical operators, which uses the existing variable, to reassign it with an logical operator as a fallback value. About the Reflect instance, that is wrong, should be revised, indeed. I used it as outside JavaScript context. And no, Reflect doesn't become a constructor, both of us know that, so I don't know why you brought it up. Fail in this context means that the object returned with an error, null or undefined. I disagree. People understand the relationship between error, null and undefined as similar, meaning if things go south, this is where we put our try/catch as an function object. The examples are to show the use of undefined without the "proposal". ( It chronological, so last example would be natural in this use case ) . To Bergi: Yeah, it serves its purpose, but I think that `var value = value || "another value";` is bad as opposed to how I'd tackle it with Reflect. I always think that you don't need to write things as-they-are in forums where people have worked with JS quite some time. I tried to explain why I mean that this isn't a real object by saying that it doesn't contain prototype or constructor and thereby people got the analogy. Often when I say things are not things, as by objects are not objects, I assume people manage to reason without having to pin facts straight into their faces. Often I and people find that disrespectful( people try to teach you like a kid). Anyways, Reflect cannot be created as Object.Reflect, and that is what I mean by you having to assign it like: `var Value = Reflect.create() ` I'd like us to make a thread/ issue on the repo, so we avoid spamming people if that is fine? Also, if you have any other questions regarding how things are written, please, do file a PR, I bet you are better at explaining things in text than I am. :)
evenstensberg at gmail.com (2016-05-26T22:01:19.442Z)
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, of which Brendan was agreeing too. The rest of the discussion was about shaping the code into a proposal, which we didn't manage to do. In order for you to fully understand the context I have copy+pasted from MDN so you can stop arguing of how I wrote "it is not an object". In terms of how this is not an object, is that is doesn't give us a constructor or prototype(?) and it behaves statically in that matter. Unlike most global objects, Reflect is not a constructor. You can not use it with a new operator <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new> or invoke the Reflect object as a function. All properties and methods of Reflect are static (just like the Math <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math> object). I guess that this is repetition, but there's no wrong in saying this again. IMO. was bad typed by me there. By logical instance I mean that it should remove code with logical operators, which uses the existing variable, to reassign it with an logical operator as a fallback value. About the Reflect instance, that is wrong, should be revised, indeed. I used it as outside JavaScript context. And no, Reflect doesn't become a constructor, both of us know that, so I don't know why you brought it up. Fail in this context means that the object returned with an error, null or undefined. I disagree. People understand the relationship between error, null and undefined as similar, meaning if things go south, this is where we put our try/catch as an function object. The examples are to show the use of undefined without the "proposal". ( It chronological, so last example would be natural in this use case ) . To Bergi: Yeah, it serves its purpose, but I think that `var value = value || "another value";` is bad as opposed to how I'd tackle it with Reflect. I always think that you don't need to write things as-they-are in forums where people have worked with JS quite some time. I tried to explain why I mean that this isn't a real object by saying that it doesn't contain prototype or constructor and thereby people got the analogy. Often when I say things are not things, as by object is not objects, I assume people manage to reason without having to pin facts straight into their faces. Often I and people find that disrespectful( people try to teach you like a kid). Anyways, Reflect cannot be created as Object.Reflect, and that is what I mean by you having to assign it like: `var Value = Reflect.create() ` I'd like us to make a thread/ issue on the repo, so we avoid spamming people if that is fine? Also, if you have any other questions regarding how things are written, please, do file a PR, I bet you are better at explaining things in text than I am. :)
evenstensberg at gmail.com (2016-05-26T22:00:53.607Z)
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, of which Brendan was agreeing too. The rest of the discussion was about shaping the code into a proposal, which we didn't manage to do. In order for you to fully understand the context I have copy+pasted from MDN so you can stop arguing of how I wrote "it is not an object". In terms of how this is not an object, is that is doesn't give us a constructor or prototype(?) and it behaves statically in that matter. // Suppose to be some copy+paste text here. Unlike most global objects, Reflect is not a constructor. You can not use it with a new operator <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new> or invoke the Reflect object as a function. All properties and methods of Reflect are static (just like the Math <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math> object). I guess that this is repetition, but there's no wrong in saying this again. IMO. was bad typed by me there. By logical instance I mean that it should remove code with logical operators, which uses the existing variable, to reassign it with an logical operator as a fallback value. About the Reflect instance, that is wrong, should be revised, indeed. I used it as outside JavaScript context. And no, Reflect doesn't become a constructor, both of us know that, so I don't know why you brought it up. Fail in this context means that the object returned with an error, null or undefined. I disagree. People understand the relationship between error, null and undefined as similar, meaning if things go south, this is where we put our try/catch as an function object. The examples are to show the use of undefined without the "proposal". ( It chronological, so last example would be natural in this use case ) . To Bergi: Yeah, it serves its purpose, but I think that `var value = value || "another value";` is bad as opposed to how I'd tackle it with Reflect. I always think that you don't need to write things as-they-are in forums where people have worked with JS quite some time. I tried to explain why I mean that this isn't a real object by saying that it doesn't contain prototype or constructor and thereby people got the analogy. Often when I say things are not things, as by object is not objects, I assume people manage to reason without having to pin facts straight into their faces. Often I and people find that disrespectful( people try to teach you like a kid). Anyways, Reflect cannot be created as Object.Reflect, and that is what I mean by you having to assign it like: `var Value = Reflect.create() ` I'd like us to make a thread/ issue on the repo, so we avoid spamming people if that is fine? Also, if you have any other questions regarding how things are written, please, do file a PR, I bet you are better at explaining things in text than I am. :)
evenstensberg at gmail.com (2016-05-26T22:00:09.131Z)
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, of which Brendan was agreeing too. The rest of the discussion was about shaping the code into a proposal, which we didn't manage to do. In order for you to fully understand the context I have copy+pasted from MDN so you can stop arguing of how I wrote "it is not an object". In terms of how this is not an object, is that is doesn't give us a constructor or prototype(?) and it behaves statically in that matter. Unlike most global objects, Reflect is not a constructor. You can not use it with a new operator <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new> or invoke the Reflect object as a function. All properties and methods of Reflect are static (just like the Math <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math> object). I guess that this is repetition, but there's no wrong in saying this again. IMO. was bad typed by me there. By logical instance I mean that it should remove code with logical operators, which uses the existing variable, to reassign it with an logical operator as a fallback value. About the Reflect instance, that is wrong, should be revised, indeed. I used it as outside JavaScript context. And no, Reflect doesn't become a constructor, both of us know that, so I don't know why you brought it up. Fail in this context means that the object returned with an error, null or undefined. I disagree. People understand the relationship between error, null and undefined as similar, meaning if things go south, this is where we put our try/catch as an function object. The examples are to show the use of undefined without the "proposal". ( It chronological, so last example would be natural in this use case ) . To Bergi: Yeah, it serves its purpose, but I think that `var value = value || "another value";` is bad as opposed to how I'd tackle it with Reflect. I always think that you don't need to write things as-they-are in forums where people have worked with JS quite some time. I tried to explain why I mean that this isn't a real object by saying that it doesn't contain prototype or constructor and thereby people got the analogy. Often when I say things are not things, as by object is not objects, I assume people manage to reason without having to pin facts straight into their faces. Often I and people find that disrespectful( people try to teach you like a kid). Anyways, Reflect cannot be created as Object.Reflect, and that is what I mean by you having to assign it like: `var Value = Reflect.create() ` I'd like us to make a thread/ issue on the repo, so we avoid spamming people if that is fine? Also, if you have any other questions regarding how things are written, please, do file a PR, I bet you are better at explaining things in text than I am. :)
evenstensberg at gmail.com (2016-05-26T21:59:45.760Z)
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, of which Brendan was agreeing too. The rest of the discussion was about shaping the code into a proposal, of which we didn't manage to do. In order for you to fully understand the context I have copy+pasted from MDN so you can stop arguing of how I wrote "it is not an object". In terms of how this is not an object, is that is doesn't give us a constructor or prototype(?) and it behaves statically in that matter. Unlike most global objects, Reflect is not a constructor. You can not use it with a new operator <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/new> or invoke the Reflect object as a function. All properties and methods of Reflect are static (just like the Math <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math> object). I guess that this is repetition, but there's no wrong in saying this again. IMO. was bad typed by me there. By logical instance I mean that it should remove code with logical operators, which uses the existing variable, to reassign it with an logical operator as a fallback value. About the Reflect instance, that is wrong, should be revised, indeed. I used it as outside JavaScript context. And no, Reflect doesn't become a constructor, both of us know that, so I don't know why you brought it up. Fail in this context means that the object returned with an error, null or undefined. I disagree. People understand the relationship between error, null and undefined as similar, meaning if things go south, this is where we put our try/catch as an function object. The examples are to show the use of undefined without the "proposal". ( It chronological, so last example would be natural in this use case ) . To Bergi: Yeah, it serves its purpose, but I think that `var value = value || "another value";` is bad as opposed to how I'd tackle it with Reflect. I always think that you don't need to write things as-they-are in forums where people have worked with JS quite some time. I tried to explain why I mean that this isn't a real object by saying that it doesn't contain prototype or constructor and thereby people got the analogy. Often when I say things are not things, as by object is not objects, I assume people manage to reason without having to pin facts straight into their faces. Often I and people find that disrespectful( people try to teach you like a kid). Anyways, Reflect cannot be created as Object.Reflect, and that is what I mean by you having to assign it like: `var Value = Reflect.create() ` I'd like us to make a thread/ issue on the repo, so we avoid spamming people if that is fine? Also, if you have any other questions regarding how things are written, please, do file a PR, I bet you are better at explaining things in text than I am. :)