This behavior is desirable. Unless you are in some dark cave of interop you shouldn't care.
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, Frank Siebenlist wrote: > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (def a nil) > nil > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (def b) > > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (undefined? a) > false > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (undefined? b) > true > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (nil? a) > true > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (nil? b) > true > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (type a) > nil > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (type b) > nil > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (goog.typeOf a) > "null" > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (goog.typeOf b) > "undefined" > ClojureScript:cljs.user> (= a b) > true > > > That doesn't feel right… does it? > > Definitely different from clojure… although it's difficult to compare > without vars in cljs. > > -FrankS. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com<javascript:;> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
