First possible problem - "of" used in if statement can put iterator in unexpected state or result in arbitrary side effects. Of course, code like "piece.isKing()" can have side effects too, but any programmer comming from any language is conscious of this danger. Using operator obsfucates this. On Mar 30, 2015 7:20 AM, "Brendan Eich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> From https://plus.google.com/+IanBicking/posts/PbXDtNF9Gg6: > > """ > Ian Bicking > Shared publicly - Mar 24, 2015 > #Array > > Huh, "for (attr in obj)" goes along with "if (attr in obj)", but "for > (item of array)" doesn't have an equivalent "if (item of array)" > > There is a proposal I guess for a method, but only for ES7: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/ > Reference/Global_Objects/Array/includes > """ > > It's obvious in hindsight. Wants a @@hasInstance-like protocol, not just > desugaring to `includes` with operands transposed to receiver and argument. > > An `of` operator with unstratified symbol-named MOP hook helps various > container-like objects cope with the vagaries of NaNs and indexOf / > includes differences between arrays and strings, and (most winningly) lines > up with for-of, as Ian points out, in a parallel to for-in and `in`. > > I'm sure it's worth some debate, perhaps someone will k.o. the idea with > an objection I can't think of, but I like it. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > 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
