proposal-operator-overloading VS proposal-record-tuple

There's a not-very-active proposal to add operator overloading to JS which takes a similar scoped approach:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading

There's a proposal to add operator overloading to the language, but AFAIK it never landed.

An example of it would be the operator overloading proposal https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading that would allow overriding === and it would also solve in one shot many other problems (like numeric types extension, pipeable operator, and all the ones listed in the proposal).

Kind of but not really. There is the concept of operator overloading that would let you specify how to handler uses of operators like - and + with your class instances, but this is not yet officially supported in JavaScript. There is an operator overloading proposal to maybe add it in the future (and if you're using QuickJS that has support built in), but right now there's not a whole lot you can do.

Though this is not possible now since operators always work on primitive values, there is a proposal for operator overloading that could potentially allow us to use operators on objects in the future. It's still very early, so its not something you can use today (or anytime soon, if ever at all). In the meantime, you'll need to use method calls to perform these kinds of operations.

I'm not sure who hates it, but I have seen it abused (which people don't like). But, quickjs has it now, and there's a proposal to have it added to the JS spec. The proposal is only stage 1, so who knows what will happen with it or when, but its not counted out.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-operator-overloading

There are still a couple issues that have to be solved. m2c: I hope that won't get to stage 3, though I like operator overloading in general, I think it's something that will complicate JS even more.

relevant issue, which is at the crux of this problem: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/387

There are still so many basic things that aren't in the JS stdlib, though. A good example is Map - if you need to use a tuple of two values as a key, you're SOL because there's no way to customize key comparisons. Hopefully we'll get https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/ eventually, but meanwhile languages ranging from C++ to Java to Python have had some sensible way to do this for over 20 years now.

If you’re reaching for structuredClone, what you really want is native immutable Record and Tuple syntax, and the companion “deep path properties” syntax which allows for efficient and ergonomic immutable updates:

- https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple

It will be called "record" in JavaScript which will swing the popularity back the other way I guess (currently a language proposal)

I suspect considering the strong desire to maintain consistency with JavaScript, we will eventually see something that when the Record proposal passes through tc39

I hope the Record and Tuple proposal makes it through

I mean, I'd love some real immutable/persistent data structures in JS by default, or even some Immer-like syntax sugar. Something like the record/tuple proposal would be awesome.

This will become very useful once Records and Tuples are a thing, because it allows you to store object references in a record/tuple (which by definition can only contain primitives).

Record and tuple is at stage 2

Also, js has an ongoing immutable value data types proposal.