Array.prototype.replace

[Ben Wiley]

Le mar. 10 juill. 2018 09 h 14, T.J. Crowder <
tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> a écrit :

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Ben Wiley <therealbenwiley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Here's a spec question: must the keys specified be numbers? The
> application
> > is questionable but I say anything could be allowed. E.g.
> > ...
> > So array rest spread would provide totally parallel functionality to
> object
> > rest spread with the key difference that result objects are arrays
> instead
> > of objects.
>
> I'd call it a minor point. But off-the-cuff:
>
> There's always a hopefully-creative tension between A) not
> unnecessarily limiting things, and B) YAGNI and/or not handing people
> footguns.
>
> In the "don't unnecessarily limit" column:
>
> * The ship has already sailed in terms of people confusing arrays and
> objects in JavaScript.
> * Not limiting to array index property names should mean the same
> parsing structures and code can be used.
> * I don't like unnecessary runtime checks, and the check that the
> property name is an array index would have to be at runtime, not
> parse-time, because of computed property names.
> * Standard array indexes are officially strings anyway (though we
> write them as numbers and they get optimized that way most of the
> time).
> * `[length: 10]` has a certain seductive quality about it.
>
> In the YAGNI and/or footgun column:
>
> * People already get objects and arrays confused enough! At least
> right now, if they write `[foo: "bar"]`, they get a syntax error
> (though of course `{0: "bar"}` is perfectly valid). Don't hand them
> yet another footgun.
> * As you say, application is questionable.
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180710/04162e8e/attachment-0001.html>