I’d prefer if we could somehow get the best of both worlds. I don’t see a solution to that dilemma at the moment, but maybe we’ll come up with something...
Harbs > On Aug 2, 2017, at 1:24 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Don't get me wrong. If you see value in it, then we definitely shouldn't > remove it as an option. However, for compatibility with the existing > language, I'd prefer to see initialization be the default instead. > > - Josh > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Any maybe vice versa... ;-p >> >> Alex was planning on looking into whether he can solve the boolean >> problem, so let’s hold off until he does that. >> >> I think comparing two booleans is pretty rare although I have already run >> into if(myBool == false) not working. Changing it to if(!myBool) was simple >> enough, but I do agree with you that it’s currently broken. >> >> For now, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on initializing values. >> I’ve seen a lot of value in leaving them undefined. It makes it really >> clear while debugging whether the value has been set or not. >> >> Harbs >> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 12:54 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe I'll convince others eventually. >> >>
