@Downgoat D: D: D:

@Downgoat no we're not, it's going to have sane casts

e.g. anything + string -> anything.toString() + string

@Downgoat func?

@Downgoat iterable + subscript using the same thing = bad

@Downgoat The only bad thing about JS typing is that it's so unexpected

@ASCII-only no i mean if we do user define casting kinda thing

@ASCII-only no not same thing

You can write custom subscript but iterable one gives you one if you want

@Downgoat but how is user casting bad

@ASCII-only you get js like casting

@Downgoat but it will have to iterate through every previous element

@ASCII-only oh

@Downgoat only if user uses casting like it isn't supposed to be used

how about sequence extends iterable and sequence gives subscript

@ASCII-only no not really. Unless you man cast only happens when explicitly said

@Downgoat pls give example of it being bad

JavaScript

@Downgoat Because and only because the casts gave unexpected results

orly

what do you think String::[1,2,3] should give. Stringified version of array right?

what about Number::"123", string converted to number right?

@Downgoat Hmm

@Downgoat definitely

ok well JS does all of that

when you do +"1" + 1 it gives 2. Why? because + needs a number, so JS will implicitly cast whatever is there to a number

[]+{}? + needs string or number, so it'll convert the two operands to string representation. [] would become empty string as no elements. {} is stringified version of object

@Downgoat {}?.+?

look monospace carefully :P

?. is not part of monospace

wait shit stupid grammar

@Downgoat why does it need string or number

well it doesn't make sense to add objects or arrays

@Downgoat [1]+[2]==[1,2]

{foo:1}+{bar:2}=={foo:1,bar:2}

@ASCII-only not really how objects work

make 0 sense because of ID, proto and all

but seriously implicit casts are very bad idea 0/10

@Downgoat ?

what does id and proto have to do with result making 0 sense

shit can't edit anymore

@ASCII-only because you can't just "merge" objects

arrays are also like objects

just the keys are #s

@Downgoat It is not merging object, it is a new object that results from the addition of the other two

still you have same problem

It's like having:

class Animal {
    let sound: String = "hello"
}

class Dog: Animal {
    override let sound: String = "woof"
}

class Goat: Animal {
    override let sound: String = "bleet"
}

now if I have Dog() and Goat(), pls tell how to merge or add

@Downgoat you don't? because they both do not override +?

sorry I meant if that code was in JS

0/10 js uses extends not :

it was psuedo code :P

@Downgoat wdym, js would commit heresy and give "[object Dog][object Goat]"

no like if JS did what you suggested JS should do, what would be output?

@ASCII-only it would still give [object Object] btw

@Downgoat error

exactly

that is what it should do

implicit casting would defeat that

@Downgoat ... no it wouldn't

yes

it would cast everything into string

plus we can disable implicit casting by adding explicit like C# does

if you can implement implicit casting in sane way you can try

but I am strongly against

@Downgoat C# has it i don't see why we shouldn't have it

C# is not VSL

@Downgoat C# is a good statically typed language and therefore one we can safely take features from

lemme strawpoll

ok seperate topic: arrays should return optional if followed by ?

e.g.:

let array = [1,2,3] then array[3]? would be nil but array[3] without question mark is out of bounds

@Downgoat hmm ok

@ASCII-only strawpoll.me/12952917/r

strawpoll.me/12952917

@Downgoat 0/10 inconclusive

@ASCII-only pls halp nearly throwing bork

@ASCII-only this code doesn't make sense:

where is array variable going and where did literal come from