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 <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
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 <andyearns...@gmail.com>:
>
>> 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, <oao.hikaru....@gmail.com>
>> 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
>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
--
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
