I mentioned two benefits I can see to Array.of over []-literals here: https://twitter.com/#!/littlecalculist/status/89854372405723136
1) With Array.of you know you aren't going to accidentally create holes, and 2) if you're passing it to a higher-order function you know you aren't going to trip over the single-uint32-arg special case. That said, the "readability" story you and I tweeted about is not so compelling given that, in the first-order usage pattern an array-literal is strictly more readable. So a longer name like Array.fromElements or something might be okay. Dave On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: > _that_ is the compelling use-case I was looking for. > > Rick > > > > -- Sent from my Palm Pre > > On Jul 10, 2011 1:23 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Rick Waldron wrote: > >> The more I think about it, I still can't come up with any really exciting >> use cases where Array.of would outshine anything that already exists. I say >> strike it from the wishlist. > > Higher-order programming with Array as constructing-function bites back for > the single-number-argument case. That's where Array.of helps. > > /be > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss