super return

[Naveen Chawla]

Returning early should be implemented via a new `takeWhile` call

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 02:06 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Sebastian Malton <sebastian at malton.name>
> wrote:
> > This could be done but I see a few problems with it:
> >
> > 1. Though it does make ending from some functions like forEach able to
> be done it does not all returning from other functions like map or sort
>
> map() and forEach() have exactly the same signatures for their
> callbacks; you can definitely do the same thing in both of them.
>
> You're right about sort(), but returning early from a sort() call
> seems like a really small niche; I think it's the sort of thing you'll
> only do in an error situation, in which case throwing is the correct
> way to handle it.  (On the other hand, returning early from a
> forEach() can be due to perfectly normal reasons, the same sorts of
> things that cause you to `break` from a loop.)
>
> > 2. It does not directly allow the returning of values but this might be
> rectified by having it be a function that you call and when it calls it
> stops any further calls and then returns the first parameter past
>
> It's the outer function's responsibility to return appropriate values.
> A map() call that didn't return an array would cause a lot of
> problems; a forEach call that returned something meaningful would be
> weird. In either case, it's a bad code smell to try and override what
> the outer function is doing.  If you're stopping because of an error,
> and so whatever the function is trying to do isn't relevant anymore,
> you should throw an error instead.
>
> ~TJ
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170829/1cd81893/attachment.html>