On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> 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 ?
Yes, we don't want to introduce code point based direct indexing, which alway
requires scanning from the front of the string. We already made that decision
in the context of charPointAt which only use code unit indices.
Allen
>
>
> 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
