> Which seems fine as it is.
I don’t know you, but I guess that’s because of familiarity from years of seeing this kind of thing.
I think “=>” is clearer because it is what (AFAIK) people learn at school.
I don’t know you, but I guess that’s because of familiarity from years of seeing this kind of thing.
I think “=>” is clearer because it is what (AFAIK) people learn at school.
You might learn "x => y" in school (I didn't!) but if you did it was probably in the context of making implication (modus ponens). You are told p=>q, and then later you also find that p is true, so you can deduce that q is true. That's easy enough.
But figuring out whether p=>q is true is tricker (intuitively). Say someObj is falsey - is "someObj => someObj.data" true? Well, it is, because an implication p=>q is always true if p is not true e.g. "if normal dice rolls a 7 then the weather is rainy" is true because a normal dice never rolls a 7. Is that intuitively obvious for everyone? I can't believe it.
Is "!someObj || someObj.data" true if someObj is falsey? That is really easy in comparison - maybe not everyone will just see it at a glance, but you just check the two subexpressions one at a time, and immediately notice that "!someObj" is true. (What about if it's truethy? Also easy - the first subexpression is false, so you move on to the second one - it's only true if "someObj.data" is truethy.)