so it's a for/of with a break when it finds a code point? if that's the
only use case I'd like to have an example of how convenient it is. I am
just wondering, not saying is not useful (trying to understand
when/where/why I'd like to use .at())
Thanks
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Mathias
Hi
I believe Object.assign never update the target's [[prototype]]. But current
rev19 spec is using Put. So I'm afraid of following case will update the
[[prototype]].
var soruce = {};
Object.defineProperty(source, __proto__, {
value: { a: A, b: B },
enumerable: true
});
var target =
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, teramako teram...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I believe Object.assign never update the target's [[prototype]]. But
current rev19 spec is using Put. So I'm afraid of following case will
update the [[prototype]].
var soruce = {};
Object.defineProperty(source,
On Oct 18, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 01:12, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
`String.prototype.codePointAt` or `String.prototype.at` come in handy in
case you only need to get the first code point or symbol in a string, for
example.
Are they
On Oct 19, 2013, at 7:55 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 10:25 AM, teramako teram...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I believe Object.assign never update the target's [[prototype]]. But current
rev19 spec is using Put. So I'm afraid of following case will update the
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:22 PM, André Bargull wrote:
On Oct 18, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 18, 2013, at 1:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
maybe even better:
Uint32Array.from( '팆팆팆'))[1]
err...maybe not if you want a string
* Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The utility of a hypothetical 'at' method is presumably exactly that of
'codePointAt'.
str.at(p)
would just be a convenience for expressing
String.fromCodePoint(str.codePointAt(p))
So the real question is probably, how common is that use case.
Certainly not
On 19 Oct 2013, at 12:15, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
Certainly not common enough to warrant a two-character method on the
native string type. Odds are people will use it incorrectly in an
attempt to make their code look concise […]
Are you saying that changing the name to
The name `@@toStringTag` sounds like a function, like `toString` and `toFixed`,
but it's just a string property. The fact that `@@toPrimitive` is a function
further makes the point.
Has just `@@stringTag` been considered?
Nathan
On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:53, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 01:12, Mathias Bynens math...@qiwi.be wrote:
`String.prototype.codePointAt` or `String.prototype.at` come in handy in
case you only need to get the first code point or symbol in a string, for
It's toString tag, not to StringTag.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
From: Mathias Bynens [mailto:math...@qiwi.be]
This brings us back to the earlier discussion of whether something like
`String.prototype.codePoints` should be added:
http://esdiscuss.org/topic/how-to-count-the-number-of-symbols-in-a-string It
could be a getter or a generator… Or does
here again dunder keyword ^_^
As it is Object.assign does not bring any benefit over
```javascript
for(var key in source) {
target[key] = source[key];
}
```
except former pattern can easily filter undesired properties such
```javascript
for(var key in source) {
if (key != '__proto__') {
AFAIK that's also what Allen said didn't want to implement in core. An
expensive operation per each invocation due stateless loop over arbitrary
indexes.
Although, strings are immutable in JS so I'd implement that logic creating
a snapshot once and use that as if it was an Array ... something
example mroe readable and with some typo fixed in github:
https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/7059536
license wtfpl v2 http://www.wtfpl.net/txt/copying/
Cheers
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK that's also what Allen said didn't
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 19, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Out of curiosity: we have static methods, but seems there is no
* Mathias Bynens wrote:
On 19 Oct 2013, at 12:15, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
Certainly not common enough to warrant a two-character method on the
native string type. Odds are people will use it incorrectly in an
attempt to make their code look concise […]
Are you saying that
Domenic Denicola wrote:
It's toString tag, not to StringTag.
Ah, you know, I hadn't made that connection. That's interesting.
I still think I would prefer something else... maybe even just `@@tag`. But
that certainly makes more sense out of the naming.
Thanks!
Nathan
@@tagForToString? Er, no.
It's actually not the whole return value of any toString call, of
course. It is the %s in [object %s] returned by
Object.prototype.toString.call(x) for an object x. This suggests
@@objectToStringTag
or something along those lines. Does that help?
/be
Nathan Wall
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The use case that we don't support well is any sort of back wards iteration of
the characters of a string. We don't current have an iterator specified to do
it, nor do we have a one stop way to test whether we at looking at the trailing
surrogate of a surrogate pair.
20 matches
Mail list logo
