I think underscore might have its place on the browser world where you cant
take for granted that things like Array.prototype.forEach/map/ exists. But
when i need these I usually go to mdn and copy/paste the compatibility
section. For Array.isArray:
if(!Array.isArray) {
Array.isArray = function (vArg) {
return Object.prototype.toString.call(vArg) === "[object Array]";
};
}
This give me an standard interface, not like _.isArray(..)
2012/12/28 Rick Waldron <[email protected]>
>
>
> On Friday, December 28, 2012, greelgorke wrote:
>
>> look further, there is more than just isArray. AND underscore falls back
>> to native implementations, if any present. and it's just it: same interface
>> for every plattform.
>
>
> Yes, I'm very aware of underscore, thank you. I don't believe in adding a
> full on library for the sake of using a single function that language
> already offers natively. Furthermore, underscore has a nasty history of not
> correctly matching native implementations, so lucky you: same API,
> different behaviour.
>
> The only platforms that don't support Array.isArray are old IEs.
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>> Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012 22:31:28 UTC+1 schrieb Rick Waldron:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 28, 2012, greelgorke wrote:
>>
>> psst.. i heard underscore have some cool tools for the typeof pain, like
>> http://underscorejs.org/#**isArray <http://underscorejs.org/#isArray>
>>
>>
>> *facepalm*
>>
>> Really? On a platform that supports Array.isArray built-in?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012 22:32:03 UTC+1 schrieb Mark Hahn:
>>
>> > what sort of program scenarios you've found yourself in where
>> instanceof was the "go to" solution
>>
>> I use typeof a lot, but instanceof not so often. I sometimes use
>> instanceof Array when I don't have a helper around for that.
>>
>> I've just started a module for use in node and the client that "fixes"
>> these as much as possible. It is annoying when I get an error just
>> because of lack of camelCasing. My mind isn't good at remembering
>> minor things.
>>
>> Does anyone know how I could fix typeof in node? I can see how to do
>> it in the client. Luckily I'm using coffeescript so making typeOf a
>> function will be used like `typeOf x` and it will look the same as
>> typeof `x`.
>>
>> > Completely irrelevant to the discussion...
>>
>> What is irrelevant?
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Inline...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, December 27, 2012, Mark Hahn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Why not also allow readDir? It would cause no harm to do so.
>> >>
>> >> This isn't node, but what also bugs me is typeof and instanceof. I
>> >> cringe every time I type them.
>> >
>> >
>> > Completely irrelevant to the discussion... but you have my attention
>> now—I'm
>> > curious to know what sort of program scenarios you've found yourself in
>> > where instanceof was the "go to" solution (but painful to use?), aside
>> from
>> > useful type checking (types as in "object types", not as in
>> "data-types").
>> > If you want to know if x has Foo constructor in its prototype chain,
>> > instanceof has you covered.
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, David Habereder
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > That clears that up. Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> > Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012 20:36:30 UTC+1 schrieb Matt
>> Sergeant:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think you'll likely find where it isn't the case (such as
>> readdir)
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> name comes from the POSIX function name. There's no readfile
>> function
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> POSIX, but there is readdir(). The only other case seems to be
>> >> >> readlink,
>> >> >> which is the same issue.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://linux.die.net/man/2/**rea**ddir<http://linux.die.net/man/2/readdir>
>> >> >> http://linux.die.net/man/2/**rea**dlink<http://linux.die.net/man/2/readlink>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, David Habereder <
>> [email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I am quite new to node.js.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> As far as I can see the method names aren't very consistent. Take
>> the
>> >> >>> methods from File System for example:
>> http://nodejs.org/api/fs.html
>> >> >>> It is ".readFile" (Camelcase)
>> >> >>> But it is ".readdir" (all lowercase)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> There are a few more such cases where I don't see a pattern when
>> >> >>> camelcase is used and when not.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You could say that this is absolutely irrelevant and you would be
>> >> >>> right.
>> >> >>> But it annoys me :-(
>> >> >>> And it reminds me of PHP syntax garbage.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Is there any interest in getting all method names either camelcase
>> or
>> >> >
>>
>> --
> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
> Posting guidelines:
> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "nodejs" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
>
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
