Can't do push in forEach

[Emanuel Allen]

> > So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another function:
> 
> this is like believing that `fn.bind()` won't create a different object/function ... right?

I like how you pick out my word (like a certain gender group would) even know I re correct my self right after that with: 
>> Even know only will return another function base on the parameter to you pass to it.
Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another function:
> 
> this is like believing that `fn.bind()` won't create a different object/function ... right?
> 
> Or you want to lock that function to receive one forever until you unlock it? That's the only way you could mutate the function behavior without creating a new object/function like bind would do.
> 
> And since bind is at least 3X slower than fat arrow, why would you do that?
> 
> 
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Emanuel Allen <emanuelallen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It should allow for:
>> 
>> arr.forEach(arr.push.only(1));//only return a function limiting the number of arguments pass to it...
>> 
>> But I guess this work too:
>> arr.forEach(e=>arr.push(e));
>> 
>> But my goal was to just:
>> arr.forEach(arr.push);//will not work
>> 
>> So this style I favorite since I want to avoid creating another function:
>> arr.forEach(arr.push.only(1));
>> 
>> Even know only will return another function base on the parameter to you pass to it.
>> 
>> Still, I think it would be a great addition to the Function.prototype object.
>> 
>> JS4L
>> 
>>> On May 14, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> `$1 => a.push($1)`
>>> 
>>> fat arrow function shines mostly in these cases, not sure there's a need for anything else.
>>> 
>>> `($1, $2, $3) => a.push($2, $3)`
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Emanuel Allen <emanuelallen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That would be great to have an only method on Function.prototype.only
>>>> 
>>>> It can take one to three parameters as arguments:
>>>> -Only with using the first argument:
>>>> 
>>>> SomeFunction.only(1);
>>>> only allow the first argument in. It target the place holder so: fn.only(2) allow the two most left argument in.
>>>> 
>>>> -Only with using the first 2 argument:
>>>> 
>>>> SomeFunction.only(1,2);
>>>> only allow the second argument in; the second argument target where to start and the first not how many to let in. So fn.only(2,3); let the third and fourth argument in. 
>>>> 
>>>> -Only with using all arguments placeholder:
>>>> 
>>>> SomeFunction.only(1,2,true);
>>>> This will denote that we start from the right and and let the second from last argument in 
>>>> 
>>>> The last parameter is informing if we should start left or right when choosing the parameters to let in. The default is false; start left to right 
>>>> 
>>>> Internally this could use the function's arguments object to query what to let in.
>>>> 
>>>> JS4L
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 14, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 14, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Emanuel Allen wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Oh yes that is correct since push will push in elements separated by commas... Still my original problem is that I can't simply do arr.push(arr2.push); but it doesn't matter since it'll also push the three parameters into the array as well. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> exactly, see http://www.wirfs-brock.com/allen/posts/166 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 14, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Still, the callback for forEach is called with 3 arguments; value, index and the array.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is clearly documented in the spec and mdn and other resources.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015, 10:42 Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/15, Emanuel Allen <emanuelallen at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Surprise that I can't do arr1.forEeach(arr2.push);
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Check that line more carefully.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > Will throw an error.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > Using bind as:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > push = arr2.bind(push);
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Arrays don't have a bind method.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Garrett
>>>>>>>> @xkit
>>>>>>>> ChordCycles.com
>>>>>>>> garretts.github.io
>>>>>>>> personx.tumblr.com
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150514/eef15631/attachment-0001.html>