On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
> intuitively expect "new" to behave the same way it would as its operator
> equivalent (for all constructors, not just Array). By no means do I wish to

I agree you 'new' should match constructor, except Array. Array
constructor is broken (that's why we need Array.of/new/create
whatever) and NO ONE really use Array constructor at all (programmers
are educated to use literal initializer instead).

--
hax

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of its repositioning on the right as a property, I would
> intuitively expect "new" to behave the same way it would as its operator
> equivalent (for all constructors, not just Array). By no means do I wish to

I agree you 'new' should match constructor, except `Array`. `Array`
constructor is broken (that's why we need `Array.of`/`new`/`create`
whatever) and NO ONE really use `Array` constructor at all (programmers
are educated to use literal initializer instead).