Le 29/12/2013 14:42, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Le 29/12/2013 01:48, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
it's somewhat ironic that Array carries 'from' given it's the only
"class" that doesn't need it per case study for 3) above :-)
But Array is the return type.
It's always the return type of Array.from(x), but not the return type
of Array.from.call(Whatever, x).
Of course, but why is this a problem for the name? Collection.from for
Collection extends Array carries the same connotation.
Let's stick to real problems! The name is not a problem, AFAICT.
The part you answered to was a sidenote in my original message :-/ I
never meant to question the name.
Back to the real problem.
As a summary, Rick explained that the problem to solve was ES6 code
using ES3/5 codebases and the need to easily turn the arraylikes the
latter define to real iterable for use in the former.
It is an author's problem today. By that I mean that it's not a language
expressivity problem (like the one WeakMap, Proxies or Symbols solve)
and it is a temporary problem (granted, the transition period may last
10 years, but it's still temporary).
I believe this problem should be solved by authors via libraries and/or
tooling and that the language should not carry a scar of a transitional
problem. As a matter of fact, the library to solve the transitional
problem is 20 (!) straightforward lines of code and already exists [1]
(and with Rick's blessing, it'll be open source), so I don't believe
assistance from the language is needed.
The costs of supporting arraylikes aren't big (zero in runtime?) though.
Eventually, this part will just be dead code. Not optimal, but not a big
deal.
Ok, thanks everyone :-)
David
[1] https://gist.github.com/rwaldron/1074126#file-array-goodies-js-L15-L36
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
