Dean Landolt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 3 October 2012 05:38, Brendan Eich <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Which is more important, iterating over holes (preserved if possible), or > skipping them and therefore spreading array-likes but not iterables? I, for one, couldn't care less about holes. We shouldn't compromise any useful feature just for the sake of preserving some array hole craziness. I agree. Unless there's a sane use case for holes with the spread operator, I don't think it makes sense to make compromises because of them, especially since we aren't breaking backwards compatibility or anything. We can actually make something better here. I seem to remember an issue re: what to do with infinite iterators (generators)? If that's correct, was there an agreed-upon resolution?
Does it need one? I mean, the process crashes on out-of-memory error. Or is it some different issue here? Herby _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
