Not sure if you are talking about Array.prototype or Symbols but whatever worry you have is identical. Having a Symbol in the prototype or adding a method ... I don't see much difference. Which one is best? History shows it's the method. It plays well, it's easy to polyfill, no complexity added ... is just an Array.prototype.method.
We can survive witohut the .at or .nth like we've done long time, but if a library would add such prototype I won't blame it. Prototype and others made most of ES5, after all, and I think for good, common, useful, use cases. I'm also off this conversation since I don't have any strong need for such method. Regards On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Waldemar Horwat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/25/2016 12:00, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> `Array.prototype.nth(n=0)` looks great indeed, +1 here >> >> About the Symbol ... ugly as hell also we need to write even more and it >> doesn't scale as utility compared to .nth >> >> ```js >> a[Symbol.last] >> a[a.length-1] >> ``` >> > > I fail to see the point of this, other than trying to increase the > complexity of the language by adding even more cases which do the same > things but work somewhat differently from existing cases. > > We'd have done a lot of things differently if we were starting from > scratch. But arrays have a large amount of legacy behavior we can't > realistically change and, given that, this doesn't improve things much. > > Waldemar > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
