Ranges

[N. Oxer]

I think something like [itt](https://github.com/nathan/itt) is a good
prototype/example for a possible iterutils module.

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:37 PM Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'd love to see ranges, but only implemented as iterables. But in reality,
> we really should start pushing for a proposed `iterutils` module (or
> similar) that has all this widely useful stuff that doesn't really have a
> place in the global scope, but are still generally useful. Granted, this is
> currently blocked on the pipeline operator proposal IIUC (not on TC39, but
> I've heard/read things hinting at it), but that's the main thing that
> really needs to happen.
>
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> me at isiahmeadows.com
> www.isiahmeadows.com
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Cyril Auburtin <cyril.auburtin at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_,
>> i) => ..)`
>> It's very common to use it nowadays
>>
>> on the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more
>> powerful to build any kind of ranges
>>
>> but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length',
>> and have to use the second callback argument.
>>
>> I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1) //
>> [1, 3, 5, 7]` I think `Array.build` was proposed a long time ago (
>> array.build)
>>
>> Le mer. 14 déc. 2016 à 21:28, Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you
>>> could need here without special syntax.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <jmar777 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
>>>> have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
>>>> expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <
>>>> oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I understand.
>>>> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
>>>> cases?
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
>>>> vs
>>>> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>>>>
>>>> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearnshaw at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage.  Vendors aren't keen
>>>> on any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get
>>>> this to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically  impossible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not just the incompatibility either.  You also introduce an
>>>> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
>>>> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not
>>>> practical to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I understood it.
>>>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
>>>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Martin
>>>> 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
>>>> http://devsmash.com
>>>> @jmar777
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>>>
>>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>>>
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> 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/20180626/85d1484b/attachment-0001.html>