Suggestions for Set

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Wed Oct 3 09:28:33 PDT 2012


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Andreas Rossberg<rossberg at google.com>  wrote:
>>> On 3 October 2012 05:38, Brendan Eich<brendan at mozilla.com>  wrote:
>>>> Which is more important, iterating over holes (preserved if possible), or
>>>> 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[0] to
>> array[length - 1] is the most expected result.
>>
>
>
> However, that would mean that Array.prototype.forEach and for-of over the same array are not always interchangeable.

Yes, that's the trade-off.

Holes are considered harmful, almost always a bug, so this is probably 
tolerable (or even helpful if it flushes out bugs when someone swaps 
forEach and for-of). Mainly holes are an anti-pattern.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list