Suggestions for Set
waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Oct 3 07:53:37 PDT 2012
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>
> > On 3 October 2012 05:38, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> >> Which is more important, iterating over holes (preserved if possible),
> >> skipping them and therefore spreading array-likes but not iterables?
> > I, for one, couldn't care less about holes. We shouldn't compromise
> > any useful feature just for the sake of preserving some array hole
> > craziness.
> Filling in holes with undefined seems like the right thing to do.
> People do not depend on holes.
> Having Array.prototype. at iterator skip holes is bad because we don't
> have the index so we don't know that anything was skipped.
> To repeat myself; holes are not common and we should keep things
> simple and having Array.prototype. at iterator iterate over array to
> array[length - 1] is the most expected result.
In the "trenches", most devs consider holes to be a myth. Most have never
seen or had experience with code that relies on holes or even suffers when
holes exist. There are many sources that will back this claim, but at the
moment I can't invest the time to look up and compile a list (if i have
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss