The main things I know of that are blocked on the pipeline operator IIUC are observables and iterable utilities. As-is, using observables without methods or a pipeline operator starts to feel like you're using Lisp, not JS, because of the sheer number of operators. (It's an array over *time*, not *space*, so you have things like debouncing, throttling, etc. that you have to address.) Iterables are in a similar situation because they're lazy, it's protocol-based rather than prototype-based, and JS lacks anything like monads.
----- Isiah Meadows [email protected] www.isiahmeadows.com On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Ben Wiley <[email protected]> wrote: > It’s not clear to me that pursuit of new Array methods should be abandoned > purely on speculation that the pipe operator will pass Stage 1. > > > > That said, the realization that Object.assign provides this functionality > is enough for me to quit pursuing (my version of) Array.prototype.replace. > > > > I’d prefer that further discussion concern the earlier-discussed extension > to the Array rest spread syntax. :) > > > > Ben > > > > *From: *Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:50 AM > *To: *"T.J. Crowder" <[email protected]> > *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Array.prototype.replace > > > > just a few days ago another full stack JS dev mentioned Array replace and > it has nothing to do with what was proposed in here: > > https://medium.com/@gajus/the-case-for-array-replace-cd9330707243 > > > > My TL;DR response was that once the pipe operator is in, everyone can > bring in its own meaning for `array |> replace` and call it a day. > > > > Keep polluting the already most polluted prototype of them all doesn't > look like a good strategy to improve the language. > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:37 PM T.J. Crowder < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Ben Wiley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hm, despite the fewer number of points in the cons category I'm > persuaded by > > the argument that we don't want people getting arrays and objects > confused. > > Might be best to limit that until there is a compelling use case which > there > > might not be. > > Heh, whereas despite having written that first bullet in the footgun > column somewhat forcefully (looking back), I go the other way. :-) > > > > -- T.J. Crowder > > _______________________________________________ > 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
