What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_, i)
=> ..)`
It's very common to use it nowadayson the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more powerful to build any kind of ranges but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length', and have to use the second callback argument. I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1) // [1, 3, 5, 7]` I think `Array.build` was proposed a long time ago (array.build) Le mer. 14 déc. 2016 à 21:28, Alexander Jones <[email protected]> a écrit : > IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you > could need here without special syntax. > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >> 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, <[email protected]> >> 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 >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> es-discuss mailing list >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeremy Martin >> 661.312.3853 >> http://devsmash.com >> @jmar777 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> es-discuss mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
