[shoo]

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.