I hate arguments.length as well. But given that we can't get rid of it, the
occasional idiomatic use is not *that* vexing. In strict mode "arguments"
is effectively a reserved word. If the only use of "arguments" within a
strict function is "arguments.length", this will be visible both to humans
and to tools. Implementations can trivially implement this by without
reifying the arguments object, if it matters. "switch (arguments.count) {"
simply becomes an idiom that two sorts of people learn:1) Those who wish to engage in this anti-pattern. 2) Those who wish to understand code using the anti-pattern (and possibly berate their authors). On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > David Bruant wrote: > >> Also note that there is likely to be actual computational overhead in >>> both creating a rest argument and in destructuring it. In some cases, that >>> overhead may be an issue. >>> >> Can implementations optimize this pattern to remove this overhead? >> > > Surely they can. Will they? If it matters. > > I'm with you and Mark by default, we have rest, we have defaults, we don't > need much more. But the residual arguments.length use-case is vexing. > > /be > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
