Proposal: Static sort method on Array

[kai zhu]

if you want to adhere to the python/jslint philosophy of “there should be one and preferably only one common design-pattern to do it”, then array.from is the most suitable candidate for copying/coercing lists.  it can generalise to common pseudo-lists like function-arguments and frontend-query-selectors, which array.slice cannot as shown in these real world examples [1] [2]:

```js
/*
 * coerce/copy frontend query-selector pseudo-list to list
 */

// disable <script> tag
Array.from(
    document.querySelectorAll('script')
).forEach(function (element) {
    element.outerHTML = '<script></script>';
});
```

```js
/*
 * coerce/copy function-argument pseudo-list to list
 */

task.onDone = function () {
    ...
    // preserve error.message and error.stack
    task.result = JSON.stringify(Array.from(arguments)
        .map(function (element) {
            if (element && element.stack) {
                element = local.objectSetDefault(local.jsonCopy(element), {
                    message: element.message,
                    name: element.name,
                    stack: element.stack
                });
            }
            return element;
        }));
```

[1] https://github.com/kaizhu256/node-utility2/blob/2018.1.13/lib.utility2.js#L2781 <https://github.com/kaizhu256/node-utility2/blob/2018.1.13/lib.utility2.js#L2781>
[2] https://github.com/kaizhu256/node-utility2/blob/2018.1.13/lib.utility2.js#L5844 <https://github.com/kaizhu256/node-utility2/blob/2018.1.13/lib.utility2.js#L5844>
> On 8 Apr 2018, at 11:12 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> `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 introduced.
> I have made bugs on this presumption with sort(), until I learned it is in-place.
> 
> However, since sort() exists as it is now, it could be too confusing to have 2 `sort`s in JavaScript. If this is the case, we may have to accept this as a JavaScript language mistake in hindsight that we have to work around using slice(), specific to sort (but not the other Array.prototype methods).
> 
> But, if it's not too confusing, then I would have no problem with e.g.:
> 
> `Array.prototype.sortedShallowClone`
> 
> being introduced to the language.
> 
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 at 03:48 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com <mailto:tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Rob Ede <robjtede at icloud.com <mailto: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:
> 
> ```js
> 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 <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss <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/20180408/b037a764/attachment-0001.html>