I think I do understand ... is this operation valid in ES6 ? `var oneTwoThree = Array.prototype.concat(1, 2, 3); // [1, 2, 3]`
'cause that was the initial concern, and as far as I understand that will break. Or does it? On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrea, you seem to not understand what change is being discussed here. > Nobody is talking about removing or changing the behavior of > Array.prototype.concat. Please re-read. > ------------------------------ > From: Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > Sent: 2015-02-19 11:57 > To: Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> > Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>; [email protected] list > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Array.prototype change (Was: @@toStringTag spoofing for null > and undefined) > > > not evidence of real-world usage that would break popular websites > > the Web is (still and thankfully) not about popular websites only. > > Using the `Array.prototype` instead of creating instances in the wild has > been seen for long time, same way you don't do `{}.toString.call` but > `Object.prototype.toString.call` instead. > > When a method like `concat` has no side effect to the prototype but can > be used as empty starting point for an Array creation, it's perfectly fine > to use it as such utility. > > I am not sure that's the only exception though, and I don't have strong > opinion about this specific matter (there must be reasons to change and > software needs updates anyway) but I agree with Kyle that if ES6 claims > backward compatibility, it should stick with it. > > This is a breaking change, small or big (famous/populare websites) is > sort of less relevant. > > In github, as example, there's some usage already showing up: > > https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=%22Array.prototype.concat%28%22&type=Code&ref=searchresults > > I've also seen many `Array.prototype.concat.call([], ...)` which is > extremely pointless since that is the equivalent of `[].concat(...)` but > from time to time I use similar logic shown in Kyle example with reduce. > > Again, I don't remember why these builtins needed such change, but > things like these should be probably announced as "potential breaking" so > that developers can be aware and eventually fix things here or there. > > Regards > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Allen Wirfs-Brock >> >> > This looks like the sort of evidence we asked for. >> >> I don't really think so. This is some tweets and books, not evidence of >> real-world usage that would break popular websites and cause browser game >> theory to kick in. Such evidence is best gathered by browser vendors making >> the change and seeing what it impacts. I believe IE12/Spartan might already >> be doing so---Brian, confirm/deny? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
