if this is true then .at(symbolIndex) should be a no-brain ?
```
var virtualLength = 0;
for (var x of "💩") {
virtualLength++;
}
// equivalent of
for(var i = 0; i < virtualLength; i++) {
"💩".at(i);
}
```
Am I missing something ?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<[email protected]>wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 18 Oct 2013, at 10:48, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> When you phrase it like that, I see another problem with
> >>> codePointAt(). You can't just replace existing usage of charCodeAt()
> >>> with codePointAt() as that would fail for input with paired
> >>> surrogates. E.g. a simple loop over a string that prints code points
> >>> would print both the code point and the trail surrogate code point for
> >>> a surrogate pair.
> >>
> >> I disagree. In those situations you should just iterate over the string
> using `for…of`.
> >
> > That seems to iterate over code units as far as I can tell.
> >
> > for (var x of "💩")
> > print(x.charCodeAt(0))
> >
> > invokes print() twice in Gecko.
> >
>
> No that's not correct, the @@iterator method of String.prototype is
> supposed to returns an interator the iterates code points and returns
> single codepoint strings.
>
> The spec. for this will be in the next draft that I release.
>
> Allen
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
