Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

And to my understanding, `.replace` can be better optimized for that use case - it can limit graph copying when it builds the new string, among other things. If they actually need something like the `.map` as proposed here, they could just as easily do `str.replace(/./gsu, m => ...)`, or if

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

> We do this on our front end where we replace certain emojis with our custom brand icons. Seems like something `.replace` can already do for you? On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree map is not really a good fit for strings but

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

I agree map is not really a good fit for strings but this looks like yet another use case for `::` operator ```js const map = [].map; str::map(codeUnits); [...str]::map(codePoints); ``` Why didn't that proposal made it again? It would make *every* request to add prototypal methods redundant!

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

We do this on our front end where we replace certain emojis with our custom brand icons. I don’t support this suggestion, though. On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:12 AM Jordan Harband wrote: > What's the use case where you'd want to map over every (character / code > point /

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

What's the use case where you'd want to map over every (character / code point / grapheme / whatever) in a string, and apply the same callback logic to each one? On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:21 AM, kdex wrote: > Yeah; I am aware that ES2015 added measures that make it possible

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

Yeah; I am aware that ES2015 added measures that make it possible iterate over codepoints, but that was not quite my point. The problem that I see is that in some scenarios it makes sense to think of a string as an array of bytes, and sometimes you need to iterate over a string in terms of its

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Ben Fletcher wrote: > Consider adding the array .map() implementation directly to the String > prototype. There is a big difference between mapping over an array and mapping over a string. Arrays can hold *anything*. Strings hold only

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

Combining marks will continue to be an issue (as they are with iteration), but I'd expect that code dealing with languages for which combining marks are a significant thing wouldn't be doing this sort of mapping in the first place, or will have language-specific rules for handling mapping with

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Ben Fletcher wrote: > Consider adding the array .map() implementation directly to the String prototype. > > Here is a possible polyfill: > > String.prototype.map = function (fn) { > return Array.prototype.map > .call(this, fn)

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:24 PM, kdex wrote: > This idea comes from a rather ASCII-centric perspective upon strings and will > definitely break multi-byte characters. No. One of the improvements to JavaScript since ES5 (you know, those things you keep objecting to) is that strings

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

I think makes sense to have String.prototype.reduce too then. 17.05.2018, 17:16, "Ben Fletcher" : > Consider adding the array .map() implementation directly to the String > prototype. > > Here is a possible polyfill: > > String.prototype.map = function (fn) { >   

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

In fact there should be a common interface that iterables should implement. I think this could have been proposed before. This way there would be not more common methods proposals. On may. 17 2018, at 10:16 am, Ben Fletcher wrote: Consider adding the array .map()

Re: Adding .map() directly to String prototype

This idea comes from a rather ASCII-centric perspective upon strings and will definitely break multi-byte characters. And even if it wouldn't, your intent might have been to do just that. Long story short, it's debatable what exactly you want to iterate in a string, hence such a method would

Adding .map() directly to String prototype

Consider adding the array .map() implementation directly to the String prototype. Here is a possible polyfill: String.prototype.map = function (fn) { return Array.prototype.map .call(this, fn) .join(''); } This replaces the common pattern of splitting, mapping,