yep agreed...that's not enough reason (I just added that might be "the reason for...").
Cheers. [ ]s *--* *Felipe N. Moura* Web Developer, Google Developer Expert <https://developers.google.com/experts/people/felipe-moura>, Founder of BrazilJS <https://braziljs.org/> and Nasc <http://nasc.io/>. Website: http://felipenmoura.com / http://nasc.io/ Twitter: @felipenmoura <http://twitter.com/felipenmoura> Facebook: http://fb.com/felipenmoura LinkedIn: http://goo.gl/qGmq --------------------------------- *Changing the world* is the least I expect from myself! On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Claude Pache <claude.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The only reason I would defend the "reverse" method in strings is > because it makes sense. > > I think JavaScript is very intuitive, and, as Arrays do have the > "reverse" method, that simply makes sense to have it in strings as well. > > > > ”Making sense” and ”symmetry of API” is not a sufficient reason, because a > string is not ”just” an immutable array of chars. Consider: > > 1. Some methods defined on arrays only: `find`, `reduce`, `reverse` > 2. Some methods defined on strings only: `repeat`, `startsWith` > 3. Some methods defined on both arrays and strings with same semantics: > `concat`, `slice` > 4. Some methods defined on both arrays and strings with different > semantics: `includes`, `indexOf` > > Existence of methods listed in (1), (2) and (4) is a consequence of > strings and arrays having different needs. > > —Claude > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
