Sancrant: Jsonp does follow 302 redirects! just tested it :

Nidiffer: Hmmm interesting. my code doesn’t p*** “p***es for a collection of all-truthy results” spec although it p***es just fine when I test it locally!

Parsley: Testing, one two three

Simkulet: Oh, hey. I can send messages now

Damico: Anyway, I’m setting the prototype of the object Product

Purdue: And just wondering how I can access the “Product” objects data from within the prototype function

Nidiffer: Havvy this should illustrate that that spec is an error or something? https://repl.it/BG7c ’cause this p***es all truthy values as the spec suggests?

Stegent: Nidiffer: I got true from that, which is what I’d expect.

Nidiffer: Havvy yeah, so I do get true from it, what I’m saying is that underbar.js spec doesn’t p*** that test, it’s basically you get to write what it asks you with prerequisites, whichever of these tests p*** it lets you know, but now it shows as “p***es for a collection of all-truthy results” doesn’t p*** which is incorrect since it p***es for my when i use it locally in different environnement :-/

Lovie: Gull: Thanks, if I have an object Proto – say for example Product.prototype.rules = { myFunc : func. }

Grode: Gull: How would I access Product’s data in myFunc?

Demaine: I dunno then. I don’t use underbar.js’s specs.

Gull: Boar: you wouldn’t easily be able to: calling p.rules.myFunc would give myFunc p.rules as ‘this’, not p

Tonelson: Yeah, that’s the issue I’m having

Gull: You’d have to do something complicated, like p.rules.myFunc.callp, a1, a2

Thomason: I suppose I cant closure it to use call automatically, could I?

Gull: You’d have to do that for every product

Badoni: Euuugh, ohwell. Thanks for yoru help deltab

Gull: Maybe there’s another way of structuring what you’re trying to do

Nidiffer: Havvy figured it! turns out it was because I used single bang operator, I doubled it like the other example I had and it p***ed the test and Im not even sure how that worked out like that lol :-/

Pekarek: I suppose I could set rules: function { var self = this; return {etc. }

Grall: Nup, doesn’t work. Got any ideas?

Raub: Should I learn TypeScript? Yay or nay?

Kitchens: Or rather, typescript is less of a language and more of just a tool. There’s not a lot of learn

Kitchens: However, I think learning es6 and using babel will be more useful

Kitchens: And TS and babel are currently incompatible, I think

Kitchens: So, if you want type checking, you can look at flow

Hopko: Flow isn’t really ready for use

Krutz: Supports a subset of es6, it’s finicky and the errors aren’t great

Shadd: I err on the ‘yay’ side of the fence for typescript

Turnes: It’s going to be great when it stabilizes, though; much better than TS

Raub: Seikho, why TypeScript over ES6 for example?

Navejar: Because typescript is a superset of javascript and includes es6 features

Altice: Raub, problems with TS: the type system isn’t great, you need type def files for every library you want to use, some libraries have apis that are incompatible with TS’s type system, a lot of people don’t like it so you can’t use it on many projects

Pielow: Raub: ES6 doesn’t have types.

Huntley: Biddlecome: can’t say i’ve had much drama

Klingelhoets: TS’s type system is definitely incompatible with all of folktale. And it doesn’t seem like they want to support HKT

Bohac: Dolby: everything is the same type?

Kueny: The type system is opt-in

Barfoot: Seikho: if you’re using a type system, you’ll want something better than any – any

Jahn: Does it just default everything to any?

Christi: And TS’s can’t provide types for my libraries because it doesn’t support higher-kinded types