Yeah...I probably should've named it `removeAll` like I did in my latest use case, although I still feel it's a good idea to add a simple `remove` to replace the common `splice` + `indexOf` idiom, removing only the first to match. -----
Isiah Meadows [email protected] Looking for web consulting? Or a new website? Send me an email and we can get started. www.isiahmeadows.com On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:57 AM, T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> My proposal is this: add a new `Array.prototype.remove(item)` method... > > So not just a "would be nice," but you've provided a concrete reason for > putting it in the standard lib: Providing an optimized version vs. what can > be done in userland. Excellent. :-) > > In a similar vein, is there a specific reason you're modifying the array in > place vs. creating a new one via `filter`? Memory churn? Callback cost > (though that's *amazingly* low in modern implementations as I'm sure you > know)? Lots of independent references to it? Are any/all things you've had a > real-world problem with around this? (That's a question, not veiled > criticism.) > > FWIW, if it removes all occurrences of the items, I'd call it `removeAll`. > For some reason -- I'm not exactly sure why -- I'd expect `remove` to remove > only the first. Perhaps because `indexOf`/`findIndex` finds only the first > index, `find` finds only the first match, etc.? And it leaves the door open > for a `remove` that doesn't remove all (though that seems hard to justify if > a minimalist standard lib prevails). Web safety of the name would need > checking in any case. (Quick check says neither MooTools nor Prototype adds > either `remove` or `removeAll` to `Array.prototype`.) > > -- T.J. Crowder _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
