On Oct 2, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The direct reasoning for the resolution was:
>
> "Cannot be both iterable and array-like"
>
> It's possible that this could be added to the agenda for november, if Brendan
> wants to discuss SpiderMonkey's experience implementing it. It seems to me
> that if they're not having issues then it's at least worth a mention.
>
> Please do. I'd really like to see a more pleasant resolution if one can be
> found. What does SpiderMonkey actually do?
>
This thread from July is relevant
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-July/023918.html
In particular
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Brendan Eich 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.
>
> Specifically, for consistency, I think
>
> array.forEach((v)=>console.log(v));
>
> and
>
> for (let v of array) console.log(v);
>
> should yield the same results.
>
> [].forEach skips "holes" so the default iterator for arrays should too. All
> the other "Array extras" also have the skipping behavior.
>
> >
> > Map may win at some point, who knows? It's not winning if one wants an
> > array, numeric indexing, .length, the usual prototype methods.
>
> We could consider also have "dense" interators available:
>
> for (let v of array.denseValues) console.log(v);
>
>
> Allen
>
>
>
Hopefully we don't have to re-discuss too much of this.
allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
