On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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
>
Take a look again at those results. Although you are indeed searching
for "Array.prototype.concat(", the first four pages of Github matches I saw
were for "Array.prototype.concat.apply(", which would still work fine.
Anyone know how to do an exact match search on Github? Since these results
are sorted by best match, perhaps this indicates that there are no exact
matches for "Array.prototype.concat(" ?
>
> 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.
>
>
Agree with Domenic. The other thing needed quickly is for someone to add
tests for this to test262, so that there is browser game theory pressure in
the right direction.
> I believe IE12/Spartan might already be doing so---Brian, confirm/deny?
>>
>
Indeed. If there is already a browser testing the waters, that would be
exactly the kind of evidence we need.
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
