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?
This is just a D.o.S. hazard that engines must defend against with
memory and time-based watchdogs. Even if spread considered only
array-like types and not iterables first, a huge array or lying proxy
could DoS it. Separate concern, dealt with generically.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
