While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand. > I hope to find a good form of literals. > > Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following > cases? > > ``` > for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... } > vs > for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... } > ``` > > If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests. > > 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <[email protected]>: > >> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on >> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this >> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible. >> >> It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an >> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same >> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers. >> >> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical >> to change the language this way for such a small benefit. >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Oh, I understood it. >>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually. >>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > -- Jeremy Martin 661.312.3853 http://devsmash.com @jmar777
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
