I like we keep adding `get` and `set` here and there but I hope we are not forgetting to fix descriptors inheritance problem where any `get` or `set` can compromise `Object.defineProperty` operations (just a gently reminder that `get` and `set` if inherited can cause many troubles in ES5 like operations)
Best Regards On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Till Schneidereit < > t...@tillschneidereit.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mathias Bynens <mathi...@opera.com>wrote: >> >>> Previous discussion on this topic: >>> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-last >>> >>> We should look at how existing utility libraries handle this behavior >>> and base any proposals on that IMHO. Underscore and Lo-Dash have >>> [`_.first`](http://lodash.com/docs#first) and [`_.last`]( >>> http://lodash.com/docs#last), which both take an optional `callback` >>> parameter, in which case all the first/last `n` elements for which >>> `callback` returns a truthy value are returned. This seems like a sensible >>> thing to add to the proposal. >>> >> >> While I think having .last would be nice, I don't think it's worth the >> considerable backwards-compatibility issues. We had to temporarily back out >> Array#values from SpiderMonkey until we implement @@unscopable >> semantics[1], because we ran into serious real-world breakage. I'm pretty >> sure that "last" would break a lot more code, as it's even easier to think >> up scenarios where that'd be used as a property name on an array used in >> application logic. >> >> At the very least, I think having Array#last be a getter is entirely >> untenable: a method would at least just be overwritten in most cases, >> whereas a read-only accessor would just (silently, in non-strict code) >> fail. A read-write accessor would probably be even worse: it'd silently (in >> all code) do something entirely different than it did before. >> >> I do, however, like Axel's proposal[2] of adding .get() and .set() to >> Array.prototype, and think that that'd be way less of a compatibility issue. >> >> >> [1]: >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-July/thread.html#32185 >> [2]: http://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-last#content-5 >> > > I forgot about this, thanks for posting. I like get() much better as it > can be a "first" or a "last" (or any in between) with less surface impact. > > Rick > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
