having "==" be semantically quite different to "<=" doesn't seem a particularly nice choice of notation.
arguably coffeescript has made things worse in this case compared to plain javascript, where you're probably not going to expect === to behave similarly to <=.
not obvious how you'd improve this to make it consistent, without say redefining how "==" and "<=" work to make them raise type errors or evaluate to something undefined if the types of the arguments don't match.
Comments
I guess that is because coffeescript's <= operator is just javascript's <= operator, which does implicit type conversion.
but coffeescript's "is", aka ==, aka === in javascript, doesn't.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
having "==" be semantically quite different to "<=" doesn't seem a particularly nice choice of notation.
arguably coffeescript has made things worse in this case compared to plain javascript, where you're probably not going to expect === to behave similarly to <=.
not obvious how you'd improve this to make it consistent, without say redefining how "==" and "<=" work to make them raise type errors or evaluate to something undefined if the types of the arguments don't match.