Array.prototype.replace

[Ben Wiley]

Hm, despite the fewer number of points in the cons category I'm persuaded
by the argument that we don't want people getting arrays and objects
confused. Might be best to limit that until there is a compelling use case
which there might not be.

Ben

Le mar. 10 juill. 2018 09 h 16, Ben Wiley <therealbenwiley at gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
>
> 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/20180710/9aa714d9/attachment.html>