Freedom of choice for the win. I like it.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > @Michał: That really depends on the point of view: If you need zero-based > indexing from the right, as `[]` does from the left, you'd use > `Array.prototype.last`. > > On Samstag, 23. Januar 2016 20:56:02 CET Michał Wadas wrote: >> I can't consider `.last(1)` method to be readable... >> But I think `.nth(n)` method with support for negative index would be >> really useful. >> >> 2016-01-23 17:32 GMT+01:00 kdex <[email protected]>: >> > Not every feature addition is due to performance or paradigms. Just have a >> > look at ES2015: I'm sure that this has neither been the motivation for >> > `String.prototype.startsWith`nor for `String.prototype.includes`. Even >> > `String.prototype.repeat` appears so simple that a loop paired with a >> > concatenation could have become a popular alternative. >> > >> > Of course you could solve most of these string problems with earlier >> > versions >> > of the language, too, often explicitly thinking with incides. But on the >> > downside, your code suddenly becomes a potentially unintuitive, >> > index-ridden >> > mess, introducing off-by-one and out-of-bound errors (it even happened to >> > someone on this thread, too, if you review Thomas' code from above). This >> > isn't really all too much about saving keystrokes, but mainly about >> > writing >> > clean, readable and maintainable code. >> > >> > There's array::back in C++, negative indices in Python as well as Bash or >> > end >> > in PHP, so I don't see any reason why we should complicate things for >> > people >> > coming from these languages. Nor to I see why we should torture ourselves >> > thinking about how the underlying data structure stores its elements >> > internally when all I care about is reading the last element. >> > >> > Just ask yourself: Do you think it's substantially more readable to write >> > >> > ```js >> > [1, 2, 3].slice(-2)[1]; >> > ``` >> > over >> > ``` >> > [1, 2, 3].last(1); >> > ``` >> > ? >> > >> > If it comes to write access, I agree that`Symbol.last` could be another >> > handy >> > addition (it doesn't have to be an "either/or" discussion, really): >> > >> > [1, 2, 3][Symbol.last]; // 3 >> > [1, 2, 3][Symbol.last] = 4; // 4 >> > [1, 2, 3].last(1); // 2 >> > >> > On Samstag, 23. Januar 2016 18:01:24 CET Bob Myers wrote: >> > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > [1, 2, 3].last(); // 3 >> > > >> > > I'm wondering what the ultimate motivation for suggestions like this is. >> > >> > Is >> > >> > > it to save key strokes? Allow more semantic coding? Support new >> > >> > paradigms? >> > >> > > Performance? 'm sure someone has already come up with a good >> > >> > categorization >> > >> > > like this, would someone mind providing a link? Could one of these be >> > > considered the "theme" for the next version? >> > > >> > > I have to admit to be being quite negative about proposals of the form >> > > "Hey, this other language does X, can we do that too?", or "It would be >> > >> > so >> > >> > > cool if we could do Y", especially when these are mostly about syntax. >> > >> > Is a >> > >> > > missing `last` really one of our painpoints? >> > > >> > > Bob >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
