Hi, > No. The consensus was that the compiler needs improvement to replace static > constants with string literals and for now to not enforce one way or the > other.
I’m not sure how you get that from the two threads he had on this. I’m happy to go through and summaries the thread for you if you want or if you prefer let call a VOTE and abide by the results of that? > Until the compiler is fixed, my personal preference remains to use string > literals. You personal preference that may be that but you changed code so that it not longer uses constants. >> I also note the code is using "”+requestStatus to convert a number to a >> string. Any reason for not using the toString or String(requestStatus) >> instead? > > It’s more concise. It’s also buggy (for large numbers for instance) so I would take care in using it, if you were worried about null or undefined then String(requestStatus) will do what you need and is much clearer to understand. Thanks, Justin
