> Le 28 sept. 2016 à 07:38, 段垚 <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Because `foo.bar` is equivlant to `foo['bar']` in JS so far, and `array.-1` > could break this consistency. > > > On the other hand, `array.first()` seems not necessary because `array[0]` is > even more handy; `array.last()` looks fine to me. > > If someone prefer a more general solution, I recommand `array.get(n)`: > > * if n >= 0 && n < array.length: equivlant to array[n] > * if n < 0 && -n < array.length: equivlant to array[array.length + n] > * if n <= -array.length || n >= array.length: throw or return undefined > * if n is not a integer or not a number: throw or return undefined > > The last 2 rules make `array.get(n)` less error prone than `array[n]`. I > prefer throwing, but maybe returning undefined is more JS-style?
For consistency with the rest of the builtin library, `array.get(n)` should be equivalent to `array.slice(n)[0]`, which means: convert `n` to an integer, and: return `undefined` for out-of-bound index. —Claude
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
