Proposal: Array.prototype.first() and Array.prototype.last()
claude.pache at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 06:42:09 UTC 2016
> Le 28 sept. 2016 à 07:38, 段垚 <duanyao at ustc.edu> a écrit :
> Because `foo.bar` is equivlant to `foo['bar']` in JS so far, and `array.-1` could break this consistency.
> On the other hand, `array.first()` seems not necessary because `array` is even more handy; `array.last()` looks fine to me.
> If someone prefer a more general solution, I recommand `array.get(n)`:
> * if n >= 0 && n < array.length: equivlant to array[n]
> * if n < 0 && -n < array.length: equivlant to array[array.length + n]
> * if n <= -array.length || n >= array.length: throw or return undefined
> * if n is not a integer or not a number: throw or return undefined
> The last 2 rules make `array.get(n)` less error prone than `array[n]`. I prefer throwing, but maybe returning undefined is more JS-style?
For consistency with the rest of the builtin library, `array.get(n)` should be equivalent to `array.slice(n)`, which means: convert `n` to an integer, and: return `undefined` for out-of-bound index.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss