selectively disabling rules on a case-by-case basis. maybe.

[timoxley]

Sometimes I do actually want ==. I can't think of any usecases now but I find that on occasion I explicitly opt for ==.

I'm wondering if some of these style restrictions could be selectively 'disabled' for a particular case if a comment is present to explain why an ill-advised practice was used instead of best practice.

"use strict"
var items = getCurrentItems()
// style: my religion speaks of a prophecy where vile, dark beings
// enter this realm and do unspeakable things to its inhabitants should 
// the chosen one (me, lol) fail to protect the semicolon of the 7th line of
// the 7th file. Remove this semicolon at your peril.
items = items.map(function(n) { return n * 2});
console.log(items)

maybe.

[feross]

Hahahah, nice.

I just added documentation for how to ignore specific warnings. See: https://github.com/feross/standard/blob/master/README.md#how-do-i-hide-a-certain-warning

[feross]

The most useful use-case for == is to check if a value is equal to undefined or null, like this:

if (obj == null) {
  // obj is `null` or `undefined`
}

Which is nicer than:

if (obj === null || obj === undefined) {
  // obj is `null` or `undefined`
}

JavaScript Standard Style allows == null out-of-the-box without needing to hide any warnings. If you want to use == to compare to objects other than null, you'll need to ignore the warning that generates.

[soyuka]

+1 about ==, this is the one case that is really usefull! You can't just use === everywhere, but you should know the difference.

[feross]

Since the common case of == null is allowed by default, and there's a way to hide the warnings in other cases, I'm going to close this issue now. But you can feel free to continue discussion if there's interest.

[timoxley]

Perfect. That was the exact usecase.

[feross]

Yay!