> are there any other builtins that anybody (Kyle, or otherwise) sees as > problematic to continue with the breaking change
As that book chapter mentions, the only other one I've ever used is RegExp.prototype (being the default empty match /(?:)/ regular expression). I have used that only once in my recollection, though I've certainly taught it so I don't know if others ever did. I would *like* it to keep working, but it's not a sword I'd die on. AWB has suggested on twitter a patch to test() and exec() that could hack around that case while letting the ES6 change go through. > Kyle, if there was Array.empty and Function.empty, which would both be > polyfillable, would you find those sufficient replacements for your current > usages of Function.prototype and Array.prototype? Yes, a long time back I proposed (not on here, but informally) that there should be just such a thing Function.empty, but basically just settled back into using `Function.prototype` since it was already there (and I didn't conceive of it ever changing). The points in favor of either the prototype exotic or an "empty" stand-in are: 1) convenience 2) possible performance aide to engines. > can we provide for this use case I certainly wasn't coming to this list to propose new features for ES6, as late as it is. I only just late last nite found out about this change, and was just hoping it wasn't too late to abort the change. But if the fix/compromise is empty stand-ins that give a polyfill path to migration, I'd be OK with that. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
