On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Claude Pache <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> > Le 7 oct. 2014 à 20:36, Dmitry Soshnikov <[email protected]> >>> a écrit : >>> > >>> > And other things are better be written: >>> > >>> > ``` >>> > <ArrayKind>.from(iterable).map(mapfn) >>> > ``` >>> > >>> > Am I still missing something? >>> >>> Yes: `UInt32Array.from(['a', 'b', 'c], x => x.codePointAt(0))` >>> >>> >> Still seems the same as `NodeList` "issue": >> >> ``` >> UInt32Array.from(['a', 'b', 'c].map(x => x.codePointAt(0))); >> ``` >> > > And after you have fed the data the `UInt32Array` expects, you can > post-map it as well: > > > ``` > UInt32Array.from(['a', 'b', 'c].map(x => x.codePointAt(0))).map(v => v * > 2); > ``` > > What's is wrong in here? We don't have "too much of responsibility" > anti-pattern, explicitly separate the transformation form mapping, and > explicitly say what the format of data a particular constructor expects > (thus, mapping it before passing, as it should be). > > And that's an iterable being passed to the from may not have the `map` method doesn't seem to me a good reason either. Still this anti-pattern feels worse. Dmitry
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
