Inline. On Saturday, August 5, 2017 1:35:35 PM CEST T.J. Crowder wrote: > On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Naveen Chawla > > <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've often needed to cache array elements by a unique key each > > element has, for quick access. > > Yes, please. I've needed this in every codebase I've ever worked on. For > me, having it in the standard lib would be a win. (Yes, you can easily do > it by (ab)using `reduce`, but A) It's arguably an abusage [one I'm > increasingly resigning myself to], and B) Why keep re-writing it?)
Why do you consider this an abuse of `reduce`? The problem at hand is to reduce an iterable to a single value with certain properties. And I would like to think that reducing is what `reduce` is supposed to do. ;) Could you please elaborate on that? > > Some off-the-cuff suggestions: > > 1. Put it on `Object`: `Object.from`. > > 2. Have a Map version: `Map.from`. > > 3. Accept any iterable, not just an array. > > 4. Accept a string, Symbol, or callback: If a string or Symbol, use the > matching property as the key for the result. If a callback, use the > callback's return value (your example). > > 5. Optionally accept the object or map rather than creating a new one. > > So something like: > > `Object.from(iterable, indexer, target = Object.create(null))` > > and > > `Map.from(iterable, indexer, target = new Map)` > > -- T.J. Crowder
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss