Rick Waldron wrote:
> If you replace that by using Array.of(), you avoid this "gotcha"

That's right -- Array.of is an alternative constructor to use in 
preference to Array, on account of Array's heinous special-case for the 
one-numeric-argument case.

/be

Rick Waldron wrote:
> If you replace that by using `Array.of()`, you avoid this "gotcha"

That's right -- `Array.of` is an alternative constructor to use in 
preference to `Array`, on account of `Array`'s heinous special-case for the 
one-numeric-argument case.