On 2010-11-22, at 02:37, David Herman wrote:
> if we allowed for-in to be overloaded, I would tell people that they should
> deprecate the legacy for-in and replace it with an explicit iterator such as:
>
> for (x in keys(obj))
I have learned a mnemonic for for-in: that it is iterating using the `in`
operator. You propose that I unlearn that? Or in your new hypothetical world
does the `in` operator also get overloaded?
Ramdom thought: Can I use destructuring in for-in?
for ({key:value} in enumerable)
for ([value] in iterable)
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
