On 03/03/2013 06:53 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I had to check msdn rather than MDN since latter does not mention it while
mans shows an example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/3k9c4a32(v=vs.94).aspx
The RegExp statics aren't mentioned because they're a bad idea, imposing costs
On 03/03/2013 06:49 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Is this +1 to findIndex?
Not that I much care between the two, just making sure another reasonable name
is considered, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be named find rather than
findIndex. The index seems like the only bit you'd reasonably be
I use RegExp.$1 , RegExp.$2, etc quite a lot since I am a huge fan of the
RAM and I believe creating a redundant array of matches for no reason since
these are retrievable in any case through the RegExp constructor,
considering exec and match points to those RegExp properties anyhow, ain't
needed
that does not find a thing, that find an index I meant that simply store
once the index without needing an outer scope access and variable inside
the closure
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
I use RegExp.$1 , RegExp.$2, etc quite a lot
My proposed fallback was the English name. Granted that isn't always very
readable, however my point was that using UTC-XX isn't just potentially hard to
read, but it's also wrong.
I don't mind standardizing the fallback behavior, or recommending fallback
behavior, I don't want misleading
I still think the stability issue should be addressed in the IANA time zone
database itself, not by adopting a IANA-derived alternate registry. Has that
been tried?
I agree, we should be chatting with the IANA folks.
-Shawn
___
es-discuss
It would be useful to be able to form the intersection and the union of
two Sets. These are natural operations that are currently not part of
the API
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets).
Similar methods would make sense for Map, but one would have to think
about
* Jeff Walden wrote:
On 03/03/2013 06:49 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Is this +1 to findIndex?
Not that I much care between the two, just making sure another
reasonable name is considered, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be named
find rather than findIndex. The index seems like the only bit
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM, al...@instantbird.org wrote:
It would be useful to be able to form the intersection and the union of
two Sets. These are natural operations that are currently not part of
the API
(http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets).
Similar
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu wrote:
On 03/03/2013 06:49 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
Is this +1 to findIndex?
Not that I much care between the two, just making sure another reasonable
name is considered, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't be named find rather
this is what 've wrote as prototype at the end of the post. findIndex makes
sense to me and is better, in term of manipulation, than finding just an
element.
(function(AP){
AP.findIndex || (
AP.findIndex = function(fn, self) {
var $i = -1;
AP.some.call(this, function(v, i, a) {
if
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
this is what 've wrote as prototype at the end of the post. findIndex
makes sense to me and is better, in term of manipulation, than finding just
an element.
(function(AP){
AP.findIndex || (
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf
of Rick Waldron [waldron.r...@gmail.com]
Thanks, I've submitted an agenda item that includes _both_ find and findIndex.
Awesome!
One issue with `find` is what distinguishes
find([1, 2, 3], x = isNaN(x)); //
One idea we've discussed: allow the sentinel that is OOB with respect to
the domain (element type) be an optional second parameter:
const K = Symbol(not found);
console.log( [1, 2, 3].find(x = isNaN(x), K) ); // K, logs as not
found
console.log( [1, 2, , 3].find(x = isNaN(x)) ); //
The Set constructor accepts an iterable (including an Array and a Set) as an
argument to populate the newly-constructed Set with several values. There
should also be the possibility to add or remove multiple elements of an
already-constructed Set. That covers unions and differences, but it is
Thanks a lot.
On find(), I believe it will always be ambiguous, compared to findIndex,
for the simple reason that an Array could contain undefined too [1,
undefined, 2] ... probably an edge case not worth the consideration, but
this looks like a legit code to me:
[1, undefined, 2].find(function
Le 4 mars 2013 à 23:37, Claude Pache claude.pa...@gmail.com a écrit :
The Set constructor accepts an iterable (including an Array and a Set) as an
argument to populate the newly-constructed Set with several values. There
should also be the possibility to add or remove multiple elements of
On 03/04/2013 08:38 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I believe creating a redundant array of matches for no reason since these are
retrievable in any case through the RegExp constructor, considering exec and
match points to those RegExp properties anyhow, ain't needed when
re.test(value) is
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
[2, 8, 7].forEach(function(e){
if(e === 8)
throw StopIteration;
This would be taking a piece of one low-level protocol, and using it for a
sorta-kinda related thing that actually, on
I didn't forget in the post, neither is necessary here, I put in the post
to deal with an integer but that's superflous for the purpose so no mistake
(we all know arr[1] is gonna be handled as arr[1], as example)
Anyway, RegExp.$N is just fine and standard across all engines I know and
On Saturday 2013-03-02 10:50 -0800, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
On Mar 2, 2013, at 8:46 , Mark Davis ? wrote:
The TZDB has the equivalence class {Asia/Calcutta Asia/Kolkata}. They used
to have the former as the canonical name (in Zone), but then changed it to
the latter. Here is the current
21 matches
Mail list logo
