On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Allen privately observed that Array forEach skips holes, matching for-in. > That counts for a lot with me -- we have only a blind > for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)... loop not skipping holes, but of course it > wouldn't. That is weak precedent on which to build for-of.
In what sense is that precedent weak? It seems a stronger precedent than forEach on every axis; arguably it's one of the most-trodden cowpaths in programming, in any language. for-in is a kind of anti-precedent, for array iteration. > Map may win at some point, who knows? It's not winning if one wants > an array, numeric indexing, .length, the usual prototype methods. I agree Map is somewhat beside the point. TC39 should spec what's best for developers net of everything. Even if that's matching for-in. But the purpose of for-of is to address the shortcomings of for-in; following it just for the sake of consistency would be self-defeating. -j _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
