ES3.1 Draft: Array generics

[Brendan Eich]

On Jun 9, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK) wrote:

> I'll fix my usage of 'function' in the steps.
>
> Presently, top-level generics are not there in ES3.1. I had brought  
> this up when discussing String generics (refer the thread "ES3.1  
> Draft: String generics"); I am using the same rationale for not  
> including top level Array generics too.


Hi Pratap,

I missed this rationale extension and wanted to point out that  
there's a difference between String generics and Array generics that  
is substantial: the String.prototype.slice, etc., methods all call  
ToString on the value of "this", requiring conversion to string from  
non-String object (ES3 sense) types. But the Array generics do not  
convert. So it's possible and useful to call:

Array.prototype.slice.call(nodeList, begin, end)

for example. That's the motivation for the static-generic shorter  
forms, e.g.:

Array.slice(nodeList, begin, end)

/be


>
> Use the following link to subscribe to the ES3.x discuss list:  
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es3.x-discuss
>
> pratap
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrett Smith [mailto:dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 9:20 PM
> To: Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK)
> Cc: es4-discuss at mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES3.1 Draft: Array generics
>
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK)
> <pratapl at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Garrett,
>> I apologize.
>> I was not ignoring you. Yes, I am interested in feedback!
>
> OK, but you seem to have misunderstood me.
>
>>
>> The initial Array generics proposal did not include the thisObj  
>> param as it was felt that it could open the door to some security  
>> issues. We were even contemplating cutting Array generics from  
>> ES3.1 altogether. Later, based on feedback from many of us on the  
>> discuss lists, we are going back to specifying the Array Generics  
>> to include the "thisObj" param; these generics will be available  
>> on Array.prototype. I am currently revising the proposal, and it  
>> will include the following:
>> Array.prototype.indexOf
>> Array.prototype.lastIndexOf
>> Array.prototype.every
>> Array.prototype.some
>> Array.prototype.forEach
>> Array.prototype.map
>> Array.prototype.filter
>>
>> and also,
>> Array.prototype.reduce
>> Array.prototype.reduceRight
>>
>
> I meant the top-level generics:
>
> Array.forEach(arrayLike, fn);
>
> It was not my argument for:
>
> Array.prototype.forEach(fn[, thisArg]);
>
> The thisArg was what Erik had brought up.
>
> The other question was regarding the:
> "If Type(callbackfn) is not a function, throw a TypeError exception."
>
> ES 3.0 doesn't define "Function" as a Type. In fact, the spec often
> uses: If "x is a Function". There is: "if Type(x) is Number", but not
> "if Type(x) is Function". That is why I asked if ES 3.1 defines
> Function for Type(). Does it?
> ES 3.1: Type, section 8
> http://bclary.com/2004/11/07/#a-8
>
> If ES 3.0 had forEach, it would probably have read something along the
> lines of one of:
> 1) If callbackfn does not implement [[Call]], throw a TypeError.
> 2) If callbackfn is not a function, throw a TypeError.
>
>> I am not sure how you got unsubscribed; there must be some mistake!
>>
>
> I don't know either. Is there a link to get back on?
>
> Garrett
>
>> pratap
>>
> [snip]
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss