rtm at gol.com (2017-02-03T18:54:21.102Z)
I'm puzzled about what's wrong with the good old `[a, b].some(x => x === object.property.secondProp)`. If you insist on sugarizing this (but why?), then it could be `[a, b].some(=== object.property.secondProp)`, or even `[a, b].||(=== object.property.secondProp)`. But again, why? If you really want to write `<|(||`, I suggest you switch to APL. -- Bob
I'm puzzled about what's wrong with the good old `[a, b].some(x => x === object.property.secondProp)`. If you insist on sugarizing this (but why?), then it could be `[a, b].some(=== object.property.secondProp)`, or even `[a, b].||(=== object.property.secondProp)`. But again, why? If you really want to write `<|(||`, I suggest you switch to APL. -- Bob On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Sendil Kumar N < sendilkumarn.opensource at gmail.com> wrote: > This is a far more useful option and more sugary syntax. We can use `<| ` as an identifier. > > ``` > > // <| ( operator, arguments ) > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|(||, 'a' , 'b')) { > // do Something > } > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|(&&, 'a' , 'b')) { > > // do Something > } > > ``` > > In case of testing nested > > ``` > > if (object.property.secondProp === <|((||, 'a' ,(&&, 'c' , 'b'))) { > // do Something > } > > ``` > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170204/6c6fce75/attachment.html>