I remember once upon a time double quotes meant explicit intent of exact match, t least in Google, IIRC, dunno when that good idea got lost.
Yes, it's hard to find for exact matches but if you also check the reduce example, `Array.prototype` is simply passed around. Again, I don't know how much would break here, all I know is that it would be **excellent** to have a list of potentially breaking changes like this one. We can debate for days how breaking this is, but as a change ... it breaks, as Allen confirmed. Can we have either a list of these changes (I'm sure I've missed many, like this one, for example) or can we just stick with the "ES6 is backward compat" umbrella? Best Regards On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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
