On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:06 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote: > Array.from is a good addition, I guess any good framework has it. > > Though, `Array.of` in contrast doesn't bring much of a sugar. Compare these > two apples-to-apples: > > Array.of( "things", "that", "aren't", "currently", "an", "array" ) > > vs. > > ["things", "that", "aren't", "currently", "an", "array"] > > what's the goal in first case to write this useless "Array.of" prefix and > exactly the same to manually enumerate the items? In fact, the second one is > more suggared than the first one (the first one is: "added useless prefix > Array.of and brackets around items are replaced with call parens").
Note that JS's pattern for alternative constructors is String.fromCharCode, Array.from, etc. -- "class methods". So the goal of Array.of is to provide a constructor that, unlike Array, does not have that insane special case for Array(42), which presets length (and hints to implementations to preallocate) but leaves holes in [0, length). I agree that an Array.prototype.fill or similar method is a good addition too. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
