{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3/events","html_url":"https://github.com/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3","id":42970155,"number":3,"title":"csp.CLOSED shouldn't be `null`","user":{"login":"getify","id":150330,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/150330?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify","html_url":"https://github.com/getify","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/getify/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2014-09-17T06:49:59Z","updated_at":"2015-01-25T23:38:13Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Right now the value is `null`, but it seems like this is a troublesome value for false positives. I could quite easily think about sending a `null` value through the channel, but the receiving side might errantly consider that a close signal.\r\n\r\nI think `csp.CLOSED` should be an empty `{ }` object. That way `val === csp.CLOSED` type checks would be protected from such false positives.\r\n\r\nIt wouldn't be a falsy value anymore, which could possibly be surprising to some. Thus, `if (!val) ..` checks would \"break\", but as mentioned, I think those checks are inherently flawed already because of the false positives issue. Indeed, in your documentation, you already acknowledge that `=== csp.CLOSED` checks are more appropriate anyway."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/comments/71400149","html_url":"https://github.com/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3#issuecomment-71400149","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/jlongster/js-csp/issues/3","id":71400149,"user":{"login":"bioball","id":4590460,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4590460?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball","html_url":"https://github.com/bioball","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bioball/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-01-25T23:38:13Z","updated_at":"2015-01-25T23:38:13Z","body":"+1"}}