This is why we can't have nice things... Literally anything we do with the language *at all* can collide with libraries. Introducing new syntax? Code that was using eval and throwing syntax errors is now behaving differently and you 'broke the web'... Adding a `Symbol.last` method to `Array#`? People who were abusing Arrays as property bags might have code that was adding that key as a property already and you 'broke the web'...
If this is seriously the attitude we're taking as a community, we should stop wasting our time and just accept that WebAssembly is the only reasonable way forward. All of these modern nice-to-haves are a crutch and a distraction from this and obfuscate the need for a real solution. Of course, we cleaned up parts of the language once already with 'use strict'. I don't see why we can't do it again once or twice a decade... Alex On Tuesday, 19 April 2016, Bob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > Please go back and read the existing threads. We've been over this > territory ad nauseum. > > Yes, of course `array[-1]` would break the web and that's why no one is > seriously proposing that. > > As already discussed extensively, `Array#last` may be an option, but it > could collide with libraries or other code which extends `Array.prototype`, > and they seem too specialized (why not also `lastButOne`?). > > Bob > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Bruno Jouhier <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> Why new syntax here? This is just a method that's missing: >> `array.last(n)`. >> >> `array[-1]` would break things and it is difficult to find out where. >> Consider: >> >> ``` javascript >> for (var i = array.length - 1; array[i]; i--) doSomething(array[i]); >> ``` >> >> Not the best way to write such a loop but changing `array[-1]` would >> break it. >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
