Proposal: Array.prototype.first() and Array.prototype.last()
duanyao at ustc.edu
Wed Sep 28 06:59:45 UTC 2016
在 2016/9/28 14:42, Claude Pache 写道:
>> Le 28 sept. 2016 à 07:38, 段垚 <duanyao at ustc.edu
>> <mailto: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
> 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.
I regard such converting behavior a bad legacy of JS, and want to avoid
it in new APIs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss