Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Erik Arvidsson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:24 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.
Filling in holes with undefined seems like the right thing to do.
People do not depend on holes.
Having Array.prototype.@iterator skip holes is bad because we don't
have the index so we don't know that anything was skipped.
To repeat myself; holes are not common and we should keep things
simple and having Array.prototype.@iterator iterate over array[0] to
array[length - 1] is the most expected result.
+1
In the "trenches", most devs consider holes to be a myth. Most have
never seen or had experience with code that relies on holes or even
suffers when holes exist. There are many sources that will back this
claim, but at the moment I can't invest the time to look up and
compile a list (if i have time later)
Ok, I buy it.
In that case, why shouldn't spread match Array.from and use
iterable-else-array-like?
Holes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFNx7YFwFfI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-I8DQD4LI
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
