Consistent use of typeof operator in JS library code. NFC
#16261
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sbc100
changed the title
typeof operator in JS library code. NFCtypeof operator in JS library code. NFC
sbc100
force-pushed
the
consistent_typeof
branch
3 times, most recently
from
95c6783 to
9cf7c2f
Compare
kripken
reviewed
Feb 14, 2022
sbc100
force-pushed
the
consistent_typeof
branch
from
9cf7c2f to
5b1647c
Compare
sbc100
force-pushed
the
consistent_typeof
branch
from
5b1647c to
2be89b2
Compare
kripken
approved these changes
Feb 15, 2022
I noticed that in some places we were using equality checks (==/!=) and in others we were using identity checks (===/!==). In general identity checks are safer, but since typeof is known to always returns a string and the RHS of these checks is also always a string we can choose to always prefer `!=` and `==` over `!==` and `===` for the sake of code size (sad but true, we care that much about each byte of output). Perhaps a better solution would be to teach closure compiler how to remove the extra `=` when its know that both sides of the operator are the same type already.. but that would be a much larger change.
sbc100
force-pushed
the
consistent_typeof
branch
from
2be89b2 to
7d74045
Compare
This was referenced Feb 14, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I noticed that in some places we were using equality checks
(==/!=) and in others we were using identity checks (===/!==).
In general identity checks are safer, but since typeof is known
to always returns a string and the RHS of these checks is also
always a string we can choose to always prefer
!=and==over
!==and===for the sake of code size (sad but true,we care that much about each byte of output).
Perhaps a better solution would be to teach closure compiler
how to remove the extra
=when its know that both sides ofthe operator are the same type already.. but that would be a
much larger change.