Thanks, I gathered so after your response. This is why 99% of the time I
wait for at least one other person to reply first, and why I *should* wait
the remaining 1%... :)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jeremy Martin
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:23 AM, monolithed monolit...@gmail.com wrote:
```js
let x = [0, 1, 2];
let y = [3, 4, 5];
// Expected
[ for (i of [x, y]) ...i ];
// Reality
Array.prototype.concat(...[ for (x of [x, y]) i ]);
// Result
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
```
Is there any discussion on
Why not just `[...x, ...y]`?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:23 PM, monolithed monolit...@gmail.com wrote:
```js
let x = [0, 1, 2];
let y = [3, 4, 5];
// Expected
[ for (i of [x, y]) ...i ];
// Reality
Array.prototype.concat(...[ for (x of [x, y]) i ]);
// Result
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jeremy Martin jmar...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just `[...x, ...y]`?
Obviously that's a solution to the trivial example that monolithed
provided, but it's not a solution to the more general problem he's
alluding to, where you're doing a comprehension and want to
```js
let x = [0, 1, 2];
let y = [3, 4, 5];
// Expected
[ for (i of [x, y]) ...i ];
// Reality
Array.prototype.concat(...[ for (x of [x, y]) i ]);
// Result
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
```
Is there any discussion on this subject?
___
es-discuss mailing
This question has already been asked
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2015-February/041430.html
I prefer to follow the following rules:
File structure
```
root/
foo/
index.js
```
Export module
```js
export default foo class () {}
```
Import module
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no official version of array
comprehensions, at the moment. So that is something to keep in mind whenever
they are added to the language.
I’d probably implement flatMap() and use it if I ever needed to do something
like this.
On 15 Apr 2015, at
Right, `map()` et al. plus arrow functions come pretty close to the syntactic
elegance of comprehensions.
On 15 Apr 2015, at 20:27, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Dave Herman did an excellent presentation at one of the TC39 meetings that
convinced us all to drop comprehension
Dave Herman did an excellent presentation at one of the TC39 meetings that
convinced us all to drop comprehension syntax from ES6. I remember it
surprised us all including, earlier Dave, which led to his presentation.
Anyone have a link?
The arguments that I remember as most significant are
a)
On 15 April 2015 at 18:36, Jeremy Martin jmar...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, I gathered so after your response. This is why 99% of the time I
wait for at least one other person to reply first, and why I should wait the
remaining 1%... :)
Heck no! You asking that question clarified the problem
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:27 PM Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote:
Dave Herman did an excellent presentation at one of the TC39 meetings that
convinced us all to drop comprehension syntax from ES6. I remember it
surprised us all including, earlier Dave, which led to his presentation.
@ liorean,
For the record, what I can see, the code in the example is broken in
another way as well, the «i» in the reality example is not the variable
name used in the for-of.
You're right the second example is broken.
I can not edit my messages, sorry.
```js
Array.prototype.concat(...[ for
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM, monolithed monolit...@gmail.com wrote:
@Mark S. Miller,
Dave Herman did an excellent presentation at one of the TC39 meetings
that convinced us all to drop comprehension syntax from ES6. I remember it
surprised us all including, earlier Dave, which led to
Just an idle thought:
Many of the spec-compliance bugs in engines' array implementations over the
last couple years have had to do with handling what happens when you e.g.
install getters or setters on %ArrayPrototype%. I've been told that handling
this case adds lots of complexity to the
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM, a.d.be...@web.de wrote:
Hello!
Why does ES6 specify the order of keys in objects, maps and sets?
Specifically section 9.1.12 [[OwnPropertyKeys]] says the result list must be
integer indices in ascending numeric, then strings in property creation
order, then
Hello!
Why does ES6 specify the order of keys in objects, maps and sets?
Specifically section 9.1.12 [[OwnPropertyKeys]] says the result list must be
integer indices in ascending numeric, then strings in property creation order,
then symbols in property creation order.
Similarly, 23.1.3.5
For what it's worth, forcing an enumeration order does make polyfilling
harder, assuming there's an engine out there that *doesn't* already use
that ordering.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM, a.d.be...@web.de wrote:
Hello!
Why does ES6 specify the order of keys in objects, maps and sets?
Tab Atkins Jr. schrieb:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:39 PM, a.d.be...@web.de wrote:
What was the motivation to pin these down in ES6?
Because, for objects at least, all implementations used approximately
the same order (matching the current spec), and lots of code was
inadvertently written
18 matches
Mail list logo
