You are absolutely correct... That is if you are creating method names that
include the type

Array.ofStrings() is certainly more clear than Array.ofType(String) but it
has it's obvious negatives. We already have a concept in the language which
is typeof so could even go with Array.typeOf(String)

I'll also comment that I sort of dislike the sound of Array.new() *shrug*

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Shijun He <hax.sfo at gmail.com> wrote:

> See the screenshots for the "array of" search suggestion in search engine.
> As a non-English native speaker, I'd like to say the search suggestion
> of "array of" in non-english languages seems most come from the
> programmers' input, so it shows how worldwide programmers think what
> "array of" means ;)
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Matthew Robb <matthewwrobb at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I agree with Rick on the general feeling with Array.of
> >
> > If arguing ambiguity I would argue a better method name for type guarded
> > arrays would be Array.ofType
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday, August 26, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick Waldron wrote:
> >>
> >> But Array.of is not. Maybe Array.new is a good name.
> >>
> >> Array.of is unambiguous with the current ES specification
> >>
> >>
> >> Array.new is ok too, though -- no problem with a reserved identifier as
> >> a property name. It's darn nice for Rubyists.
> >>
> >> OTOH Array.of matches the preposition pattern used in Array.from. But I
> >> don't think this trumps Array.new.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nor do I, but I think it poses a problem for polyfilling (which is not a
> >> silver bullet).
> >>
> >> +1 Array.new, but I still think Array.of sounds, feels and looks nicer
> >>
> >> Rick
> >>
> >> Cc'ing Dave for his thoughts.
> >>
> >> /be
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120827/afb3a715/attachment.html>

You are absolutely correct... That is if you are creating method names that
include the type

`Array.ofStrings()` is certainly more clear than `Array.ofType(String)` but it
has it's obvious negatives. We already have a concept in the language which
is `typeof` so could even go with `Array.typeOf(String)`

I'll also comment that I sort of dislike the sound of `Array.new()` *shrug*