Ben Wiley therealbenwiley at
Tue Jul 10 15:18:07 UTC 2018

It’s not clear to me that pursuit of new Array methods should be abandoned purely on speculation that the pipe operator will pass Stage 1.

That said, the realization that Object.assign provides this functionality is enough for me to quit pursuing (my version of) Array.prototype.replace.

I’d prefer that further discussion concern the earlier-discussed extension to the Array rest spread syntax. :)


From: Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at>
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 10:50 AM
To: "T.J. Crowder" <tj.crowder at>
Cc: "therealbenwiley at" <therealbenwiley at>, "es-discuss at" <es-discuss at>
Subject: Re: Array.prototype.replace

just a few days ago another full stack JS dev mentioned Array replace and it has nothing to do with what was proposed in here:

My TL;DR response was that once the pipe operator is in, everyone can bring in its own meaning for `array |> replace` and call it a day.

Keep polluting the already most polluted prototype of them all doesn't look like a good strategy to improve the language.

Just my 2 cents.

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:37 PM T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at<mailto:tj.crowder at>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Ben Wiley <therealbenwiley at<mailto:therealbenwiley at>> wrote:
> 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.
Heh, whereas despite having written that first bullet in the footgun column somewhat forcefully (looking back), I go the other way. :-)

-- T.J. Crowder
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at<mailto:es-discuss at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list