| 00:02 | <jmdyck> | Editorial-Conventions 'Comparisons' used to have an "(except in asserts)", then 3844 took it out. Was that intentional? (Asking before I change my code.) |
| 00:53 | <Michael Ficarra> | No, we generally don't apply the same editorial conventions to asserts, including comparisons. We should add the exception back. |
| 00:56 | <Richard Gibson> | we should first check if there are any cases where it matters. But I'd personally be fine with e.g. Assert: _x_ = 0, and suspect we already have steps like that |
| 01:03 | <jmdyck> | Why not apply the same editorial conventions to asserts? |
| 01:06 | <Michael Ficarra> | Sometimes things like "When x is y, some invariant holds" read better than "When x = y, ...", even though the latter would be mandated if our conventions apply. |
| 01:07 | <Michael Ficarra> | or god forbid SameValue |
| 04:55 | <Richard Gibson> | so it turns out there's a couple handfuls of assertions that would be in scope for this, but honestly most of them read just fine to me with =/≠. Here are some examples that would change:
In fact, the only two cases that I think would be made worse by such a switch are in Decode and RegExp.escape: |