Sarao: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Numkena: You shouldn’t be doing type tests in JS anyway. Or in any OO language. It’s anti-OO.
Reineck: Thankfully you don’t usually need to do checks on type like that
Gentleman: Heroman: that’s not actually true.
Varin: Not strictly true, Gentleman. Just generally. 😛
Burgeson: It’s not true for true Arrays, for instance.
Gentleman: Heroman: that’s never actually true for builtins.
Dinovi: And unlike functions and Arrays, JS doesn’t even have special behaviours for regular expressions.
Gentleman: STRML: as i said. my “is-foo” modules are the only examples i know of that are reliably branding checks for things in ES6.
Sellberg: For functions you can use typeof. For arrays you can use Array.isArray. For anything else, it doesn’t really make sense to care about things
Gentleman: Hylle: every builtin has internal slots
Gentleman: Oh, i see what you mean
Gentleman: But yeah there are methods that will throw unless you give them a regex
Gentleman: So you need to know if it’s actually a regex
Aldama: Gentleman: which eases your work, since the only thing you can do after “type checking” is throwing a TypeError anyway 😀
Reineck: And I’m the go-to for complaints on when people explain things using obscure academic lingo instead of what people understand
Stittgen: Not the same as cans and can-nots or wills or will-nots.
Studmire: But academic lingo is cute :
Broussard: I think I’ll cuten my typeface even more. :3 One-stroke “n”, two-stroke “m”, one-stroke “b”, one-stroke “d”, one-stroke “p”, one-stroke “q”.
Tordsen: If vertical space weren’t such a concern, I’d dot “i” with a circle.
Reineck: Why don’t you dot it with a heart
Peloquin: Pixel font. Not enough resolution.
Kaller: And sometimes I make typefaces intended for editing source code.
Wolverton: It’s sans-serif gothic, with a few select flourishes.
Baudino: Zomg, what do you think?
Kahoun: The font, not the code example.
Reineck: Is it the same as last time?
Reineck: The png seems to give an error 500
Marlene: Does anyone have an article that explains why using nested cl***es can be a bad decision?
Geyette: Zomg: Dropbox seems to be down at the moment. :
Babilon: Anyway, zomg, were you the one who commented that my fonts looked scrunched?
Bosefski: This design is more recent – it’s slightly larger.
Eppley: And tries not to be scrunched.
Reineck: Heroman: yeah that was probably me
Oberdorf: This design is the same, but slightly larger now.
Reineck: But yeah the image doesn’t open for me
Banchero: For me, neither using Dropbox’s online interface.
Zuckerman: Must be a server issue.
Malphurs: Try again a little later.
Kuka: Hmm, weirdly I got a thumbnail but I can’t click the image.
Gentleman: Literphor_: “huge” and “nested” is usually a bad idea.
Gentleman: Literphor_: small and separated is much better.
Balistreri: Gentleman: I agree, I need an article that helps describe the reasons why it’s bad, if you have one available
Gentleman: Literphor_: it’s common sense imo? larger means more to think about, more that can break when you make a change, more you have to understand when debugging or refactoring or fixing things