I also noticed the naming similarity to ES6 `Symbol`s. I've seen people fill `String.prototype.getFullChar` before and similarly things like `String.prototype.fromFullCharCode` for dealing with surrogates before. I like `String.prototype.signAt` but I haven't seen it used before.
I'm eager to hear what Allen has to say about this given his work on unicode in ecmascript. Especially how it settles with this http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:support_full_unicode_in_strings&rev=1304034700 I also think that this is important enough to be there. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> To: Rick Waldron <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected] list" <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:47:21 -0500 Subject: Re: `String.prototype.symbolAt()` (improved `String.prototype.charAt()`) On 18 Oct 2013, at 09:21, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the idea is good, but the name may be confusing with regard to Symbols (maybe not?) Yeah, I thought about that, but couldn’t figure out a better name. “Glyph” or “Grapheme” wouldn’t be accurate. Any suggestions? Anyway, if everyone agrees this is a good idea I’ll get started on fleshing out a proposal. We can then use this thread to bikeshed about the name.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
