Pure win: Array.from and Array.of

Dmitry A. Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com
Sun Jul 10 13:39:36 PDT 2011


On 11.07.2011 0:35, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
>
>> On 10.07.2011 22:44, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10.07.2011 21:23, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 10, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The more I think about it, I still can't come up with any really 
>>>>>> exciting use cases where Array.of <http://Array.of/> would 
>>>>>> outshine anything that already exists. I say strike it from the 
>>>>>> wishlist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Higher-order programming with Array as constructing-function bites 
>>>>> back for the single-number-argument case. That's where Array.of helps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean when `Array` itself is passed as an argument?
>>>>
>>>> var o = (function (ArrayConstructor, ...rest) {
>>>>     return ArrayConstructor(...rest);
>>>> })(Array, 10, 20, 30);
>>>
>>> Yes. Now consider the case where you leave out the 20 and 30.
>>>
>>
>> return ArrayConstructor(rest[0]) ?
>
> The called function taking ArrayConstructor cannot assume it was 
> passed only one trailing parameter captured by ...rest!
>
>
>> May I ask to show nevertheless how you want to apply here Array.of?
>
> You would pass Array.of instead of Array, of course.
>

Yes, I've already realized it. Array.of is just a "fixed" version of 
Array. Though, I'm still thinking how rare/often these cases are.

>
>> P.S.:
>>
>> If this is a wish-list of extending standard array lib, we can 
>> consider also the following:
>
> A postscript is no place for more wish list items. See the subject: 
> and start a new thread.

Yes, OK, it will be better.

Dmitry.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110711/0edf044e/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list