On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Jason Orendorff wrote:
break; // exiting JS loops since 1994
1995!
Mercurial logs only go back to 2007, CVS only to 1998, so I will have to
take your word for it! :)
-j
Le 05/03/2013 00:31, Jason Orendorff a écrit :
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
mailto:bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
[2, 8, 7].forEach(function(e){
if(e === 8)
throw StopIteration;
This would be taking a piece of one
David Bruant wrote:
I'm happy of the outcome of the thread if .findIndex is introduced,
but I can't help wondering whether a new method is going to be
introduced every single time someone brings up a pattern that would
make good use of stopping an interation early.
Lacking an iteration
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:42 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, if one wants to do stop an iteration early, he/she has to be
done one of the following way:
1)
try{
[2, 8, 7].forEach(function(e){
if(e === 8)
throw whatever;
Maybe I'm overlooking some past discussion on this, but if you want to
be able to generally terminate iteration in constructs like
Array.forEach (this seems like a pretty real world use-case), why not
introduce an additional argument to the forEach/etc callbacks, for an
'iteration token'?
I.e. if
Le 05/03/2013 18:32, Jason Orendorff a écrit :
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:42 AM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com
mailto:bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, if one wants to do stop an iteration early, he/she has
to be done one of the following way:
1)
try{
[2, 8,
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Gadd kevin.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm overlooking some past discussion on this, but if you want to
be able to generally terminate iteration in constructs like
Array.forEach (this seems like a pretty real world use-case), why not
introduce an
love the token/Halt idea +1 easy to polyfill too
However, and this is for David, some and every are *not* the opposite. With
some, you return true only when you want to exit, with every you have to
return true or false accordingly.
So, the return true in Array#some() is the equivalent of a
Le 05/03/2013 17:37, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
I'm happy of the outcome of the thread if .findIndex is introduced,
but I can't help wondering whether a new method is going to be
introduced every single time someone brings up a pattern that would
make good use of stopping an
Jason Orendorff wrote:
break; // exiting JS loops since 1994
1995!
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
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
* 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 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 $i = -1;
AP.some.call(this, function(v, i, a) {
if
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
this is what 've wrote as prototype at the end of the post. findIndex
makes sense to me and is better, in term of manipulation, than finding just
an element.
(function(AP){
AP.findIndex || (
From: es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf
of Rick Waldron [waldron.r...@gmail.com]
Thanks, I've submitted an agenda item that includes _both_ find and findIndex.
Awesome!
One issue with `find` is what distinguishes
find([1, 2, 3], x = isNaN(x)); //
One idea we've discussed: allow the sentinel that is OOB with respect to
the domain (element type) be an optional second parameter:
const K = Symbol(not found);
console.log( [1, 2, 3].find(x = isNaN(x), K) ); // K, logs as not
found
console.log( [1, 2, , 3].find(x = isNaN(x)) ); //
Thanks a lot.
On find(), I believe it will always be ambiguous, compared to findIndex,
for the simple reason that an Array could contain undefined too [1,
undefined, 2] ... probably an edge case not worth the consideration, but
this looks like a legit code to me:
[1, undefined, 2].find(function
On 03/04/2013 08:38 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I believe creating a redundant array of matches for no reason since these are
retrievable in any case through the RegExp constructor, considering exec and
match points to those RegExp properties anyhow, ain't needed when
re.test(value) is
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
[2, 8, 7].forEach(function(e){
if(e === 8)
throw StopIteration;
This would be taking a piece of one low-level protocol, and using it for a
sorta-kinda related thing that actually, on
I didn't forget in the post, neither is necessary here, I put in the post
to deal with an integer but that's superflous for the purpose so no mistake
(we all know arr[1] is gonna be handled as arr[1], as example)
Anyway, RegExp.$N is just fine and standard across all engines I know and
* David Bruant wrote:
One (minor) annoyance with forEach/map, etc. is that the enumeration
can't be stopped until all elements have been traversed which doesn't
suit every use case. One hack to stop the enumeration is to throw an
error but that requires to wrap the .forEach call in a try/catch
Le 03/03/2013 19:56, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
* David Bruant wrote:
One (minor) annoyance with forEach/map, etc. is that the enumeration
can't be stopped until all elements have been traversed which doesn't
suit every use case. One hack to stop the enumeration is to throw an
error but that
David Bruant wrote:
Le 03/03/2013 19:56, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
* David Bruant wrote:
One (minor) annoyance with forEach/map, etc. is that the enumeration
can't be stopped until all elements have been traversed which doesn't
suit every use case. One hack to stop the enumeration is to throw
Le 03/03/2013 20:29, Brendan Eich a écrit :
If you want some or every and not forEach, they are there -- use them.
No exception required.
I've found myself multiple times in a situation where I needed the index
of the first element responding to some conditions. I solved it the
following way:
(a) not a compatible change for engines already prototyping StopIteration.
(b) wrong hammer for this nail.
Are the some and every names confusing? Would any and all be better?
I think this is an RTFM thing, and people are smart, they memorize what
they need to know.
/be
David Bruant wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
(a) not a compatible change for engines already prototyping StopIteration.
(b) wrong hammer for this nail.
Are the some and every names confusing? Would any and all be better?
I think the naming boat has sailed, and i'm
* David Bruant wrote:
I've found myself multiple times in a situation where I needed the index
of the first element responding to some conditions. I solved it the
following way:
var index;
array.some(function(e, i){
if(someCondition(e)){
index = i;
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* David Bruant wrote:
I've found myself multiple times in a situation where I needed the index
of the first element responding to some conditions. I solved it the
following way:
var index;
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* David Bruant wrote:
I've found myself multiple times in a situation where I needed the index
of the first element responding to some conditions. I solved it the
following way:
var index;
array.some(function(e, i){
if(someCondition(e)){
hacky but easy to solve reusing once a RegExp
var i = [1,2,3].some(function(v, i){
return v === 2 this.test(i);
}, /\d+/) RegExp['$'];
alert(i); // 1
no extra loop, no global anything, just an extra object needed, the RegExp,
actually something you could create once in your closure and
and post with few variants:
http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2013/03/breaking-array-extras.html
br
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
hacky but easy to solve reusing once a RegExp
var i = [1,2,3].some(function(v, i){
return v === 2
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
hacky but easy to solve reusing once a RegExp
var i = [1,2,3].some(function(v, i){
return v === 2 this.test(i);
}, /\d+/) RegExp['$'];
My Perl 4 _homage_, blechh.
Thanks, this will help sell findIndex to TC39 :-P.
/be
alert(i); // 1
no extra loop, no global
Brendan Eich wrote:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
RegExp['$'];
My Perl 4 _homage_, blechh.
(You could at least have had the decency to use RegExp.lastMatch... ;-)
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* David Bruant wrote:
I've found myself multiple times in a situation where I needed the index
of the first element responding to some conditions. I solved it the
following way:
var
I was going to say...
indexOf with a callback is the best thing since sliced bread.
On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* David Bruant wrote:
I've found
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.com wrote:
I was going to say...
indexOf with a callback is the best thing since sliced bread.
Is this +1 to findIndex?
I ask because:
var a = function() {}, array = [a];
array.indexOf(a); // 0
Rick
On Mar 3, 2013, at
well, lastMatch is 9 chars against ['$'] 6 but actually didn't know about
lastMatch, it looks like to have more info about those properties, included
lastParen, I had to check msdn rather than MDN since latter does not
mention it while mans shows an example:
had instantly same thought ... I use functions in Array very often to
handle/manage asynchronous queues
br
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Brandon Benvie bben...@mozilla.comwrote:
I was going to say...
42 matches
Mail list logo
