> (like a certain gender group would) what is this ?
Anyway, you had your answers, I guess. Take care On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Emanuel Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another function: > > this is like believing that `fn.bind()` won't create a different > object/function ... right? > > I like how you pick out my word (like a certain gender group would) even > know I re correct my self right after that with: > > Even know only will return another function base on the parameter to you >> pass to it. >> > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 14, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another > function: > > this is like believing that `fn.bind()` won't create a different > object/function ... right? > > Or you want to lock that function to receive one forever until you unlock > it? That's the only way you could mutate the function behavior without > creating a new object/function like bind would do. > > And since bind is at least 3X slower than fat arrow, why would you do that? > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Emanuel Allen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It should allow for: >> >> arr.forEach(arr.push.only(1));//only return a function limiting the >> number of arguments pass to it... >> >> But I guess this work too: >> arr.forEach(e=>arr.push(e)); >> >> But my goal was to just: >> arr.forEach(arr.push);//will not work >> >> So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another function: >> arr.forEach(arr.push.only(1)); >> >> Even know only will return another function base on the parameter to you >> pass to it. >> >> Still, I think it would be a great addition to the Function.prototype >> object. >> >> JS4L >> >> On May 14, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> `$1 => a.push($1)` >> >> fat arrow function shines mostly in these cases, not sure there's a need >> for anything else. >> >> `($1, $2, $3) => a.push($2, $3)` >> >> Regards >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Emanuel Allen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That would be great to have an only method on Function.prototype.only >>> >>> It can take one to three parameters as arguments: >>> -Only with using the first argument: >>> >>> SomeFunction.only(1); >>> only allow the first argument in. It target the place holder so: >>> fn.only(2) allow the two most left argument in. >>> >>> -Only with using the first 2 argument: >>> >>> SomeFunction.only(1,2); >>> only allow the second argument in; the second argument target where to >>> start and the first not how many to let in. So fn.only(2,3); let the third >>> and fourth argument in. >>> >>> -Only with using all arguments placeholder: >>> >>> SomeFunction.only(1,2,true); >>> This will denote that we start from the right and and let the second >>> from last argument in >>> >>> The last parameter is informing if we should start left or right when >>> choosing the parameters to let in. The default is false; start left to right >>> >>> >>> Internally this could use the function's arguments object to query what >>> to let in. >>> >>> JS4L >>> >>> On May 14, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On May 14, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Emanuel Allen wrote: >>> >>> Oh yes that is correct since push will push in elements separated by >>> commas... Still my original problem is that I can't simply do >>> arr.push(arr2.push); but it doesn't matter since it'll also push the three >>> parameters into the array as well. >>> >>> >>> exactly, see http://www.wirfs-brock.com/allen/posts/166 >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On May 14, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Still, the callback for forEach is called with 3 arguments; value, index >>> and the array. >>> >>> This is clearly documented in the spec and mdn and other resources. >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015, 10:42 Garrett Smith <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/14/15, Emanuel Allen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Surprise that I can't do arr1.forEeach(arr2.push); >>>> > >>>> >>>> Check that line more carefully. >>>> >>>> >>>> > Will throw an error. >>>> > >>>> > Using bind as: >>>> > >>>> > push = arr2.bind(push); >>>> >>>> Arrays don't have a bind method. >>>> -- >>>> Garrett >>>> @xkit >>>> ChordCycles.com >>>> garretts.github.io >>>> personx.tumblr.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
