Proposal: Static sort method on Array
naveen.chwl at gmail.com
Sun Apr 8 03:12:19 UTC 2018
`slice()` is better than `Array.from()` if you already have an array
because you can chain it with the other Array.prototype methods.
Good point about not needing it after you've done a map/filter/concat or
whatever, since you already have a new array.
However I agree with the thrust of a proposal that produces a new array
from sort instead of in-place, at least from when `sort` was being
I have made bugs on this presumption with sort(), until I learned it is
However, since sort() exists as it is now, it could be too confusing to
around using slice(), specific to sort (but not the other Array.prototype
But, if it's not too confusing, then I would have no problem with e.g.:
being introduced to the language.
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 at 03:48 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Rob Ede <robjtede at icloud.com> wrote:
> > ...I'm considering creating a proposal to add an Array.sort()
> > method that takes an array and returns a new array...
> That would be:
> let newArray = originalArray.slice().sort();
> // or
> let newArray = Array.from(originalArray).sort();
> // or
> let newArray = [...originalArray].sort();
> I don't know that we need a new static for it. Unless the motivation is to
> allow insertion sort or other sort algorithms that work best when creating
> a new array as a result? But if we assume `Array.prototype.sort` already
> uses quicksort or mergesort or similar, I'm not seeing much reason to add a
> new static to allow insertsion sort or similar...
> Can you expand on use cases and why the above aren't sufficient?
> -- T.J. Crowder
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss