Back

@aral initial reaction:
i don't like the .endIf - feels really awkward.

yes & no feel wrong because it's not a yes/no question it's a true/false question. it's introducing new terminology that isn't clearer than old. if sticking with that, then what about

isTrue().yes().no()
or
test().trueResult().falseResult()

Also, if thinking about how to better it, I can't help but think about simplicity of the lisp/scheme version (test true-result false-result)

@masukomi @aral in the same line, I would also suggest the following alternative: if().thenDo().elseDo()
Not definitive, but I think a step in the right direction at least :)

@vancha @masukomi I wish I could use if but it’s sadly a reserved word in JavaScript. Otherwise that would have been my first choice too :)

@vancha @masukomi Mind you, what would work is to have a global namespace (object), e.g., kitten, and have the functions defined there.

So: kitten.if().then().else().endIf()

But I’m not sure if that’s better than is().yes().no().endIs() when reading it.

@aral @masukomi Ah apologies, I should have changed the if part. What i wanted to emphasize was the thenDo() and elseDo() part, to highlight that the latter two blocks are dependent on value inside the if. :) Either way I like the idea of improving on the confusing ternary operator in the first place, it's less than intuitive.

@aral hhaheh. I'm sorry to report that my gut reaction was "...wha uh.. oh gods i hate javascript" ;)

BUT... overall looks fine
1. i think i want the option of `.is().yes()` (without `.no()`)
2. I feel like there "must" be a way to consolidate that code ...something something recursion? not sure.