I don't think that screenshots of search suggestions for a language feature
that hasn't even been published is valid argument in this discussion.

I'd also argue that these results support the current Array.of definition,
eg.

"I need to make an array of strings":

Array.of( "A", "B", "C", "D" );

...Which returns an array of strings. Any example works, Array.of( things,
... ) nicely describes what the function can be expected to do. As I noted
earlier, I'm not opposed to Array.new(), but I maintain the position that
it reads like backwards computer speak.

Rick



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/20120827/9895ed8b/attachment-0001.html>

I don't think that screenshots of search suggestions for a language feature
that hasn't even been published is valid argument in this discussion.

I'd also argue that these results support the current `Array.of` definition,
eg.

"I need to make an array of strings":

```js
Array.of( "A", "B", "C", "D" );
```

...Which returns an array of strings. Any example works, `Array.of( things, ... )` nicely describes what the function can be expected to do. As I noted
earlier, I'm not opposed to `Array.new()`, but I maintain the position that
it reads like backwards computer speak.