What should each of the following evaluate to?
#[+0] == #[-0]; #[+0] === #[-0]; Object.is(#[+0], #[-0]); #[NaN] == #[NaN]; #[NaN] === #[NaN]; Object.is(#[NaN], #[NaN]);
(For context, this is non-obvious because +0 === -0 is true, Object.is(+0, -0) is false, NaN === NaN is false, and Object.is(NaN, NaN) is true.)
Personally I lean towards the -0 cases all being false and the NaN cases all being true, so that the unusual equality semantics of -0 and NaN do not propagate to the new kinds of objects being introduced by this proposal.
ljharb, littledan, rickbutton, kleinfreund, FireyFly and 8 moreMinusGix, devsnek and SebastianSimonyvele and papb
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4