On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch <gijskruitbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I think that in 99.99% of cases, I don't care about the type, and > therefore I would normally use is() and not care that it's using non-strict > equality. I think the case where there is (a) a possibility that I could > get '5' instead of 5 when code is malfunctioning, and (b) that would be a > bug, is extremely rare, and therefore that extremely rare case should > require the additional code, instead of requiring extra care on the part of > test-writers to get their test to be strict about types *all the time*. > I agree. I've written a lot of mochitests over many years and I have never once thought about the precise semantics of "is". Nor have I ever encountered a bug that failed to be caught due to "is" behaving unexpectedly. I'm sure there are some kinds of tests where that matters, but for my DOM/layout tests it doesn't seem to. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
