`slice()` is better than `Array.from()` if you already have an array
because you can chain it with the other Array.prototype methods.

Good point about not needing it after you've done a map/filter/concat or
whatever, since you already have a new array.

However I agree with the thrust of a proposal that produces a new array
from sort instead of in-place, at least from when `sort` was being
I have made bugs on this presumption with sort(), until I learned it is

However, since sort() exists as it is now, it could be too confusing to
have 2 `sort`s in JavaScript. If this is the case, we may have to accept
this as a JavaScript language mistake in hindsight that we have to work
around using slice(), specific to sort (but not the other Array.prototype

But, if it's not too confusing, then I would have no problem with e.g.:


being introduced to the language.

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 at 03:48 T.J. Crowder <tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com>

> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Rob Ede <robjt...@icloud.com> wrote:
> > ...I'm considering creating a proposal to add an Array.sort()
> > method that takes an array and returns a new array...
> That would be:
> ```js
> let newArray = originalArray.slice().sort();
> // or
> let newArray = Array.from(originalArray).sort();
> // or
> let newArray = [...originalArray].sort();
> ```
> I don't know that we need a new static for it. Unless the motivation is to
> allow insertion sort or other sort algorithms that work best when creating
> a new array as a result? But if we assume `Array.prototype.sort` already
> uses quicksort or mergesort or similar, I'm not seeing much reason to add a
> new static to allow insertsion sort or similar...
> Can you expand on use cases and why the above aren't sufficient?
> -- T.J. Crowder
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
es-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to