On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski < jussi.kallioko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And if it comes down to precedents in the language, even Array#forEach() > returns undefined, contrary to popular libraries out there. Let's keep some > consistency here. > Array.prototype.map and Array.prototype.filter return newly created arrays and as such, are chainable (and will have the same benefits as I described above) // map and return a fresh iterable of values array.map( v => ... ).values() // map and return a fresh iterable of entries (index/value pairs) array.filter( v => ... ).entries() > > I agree with you, fear-driven design is bad. But don't you agree that if > there's chaining, it's better done at language level rather than having all > APIs be polluted by `this` returns? > Who said all APIs would return `this`? We specified a clear criteria. > After all, the APIs can't guarantee a `this` return, > Yes they can, they return what the specification defines them to return. > since they might have something actually meaningful to return, otherwise > we might as well just replace `undefined` with `this` as the default return > value. > In the cases I presented, I believe that returning `this` IS the meaningful return. > > We could introduce mutable primitives so that meaningful return values > could be stored in arguments, kinda like in C, but instead of error values, > we'd be returning `this`, heheheh. :) > > I'm curious, do you have any code examples of maps/sets that could be made > clearer by chaining? > This is incredibly frustrating and indicates to me that you're not actually reading this thread, but still find it acceptable to contribute to the discussion. https://gist.github.com/4219024 Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
