Shijun He wrote:
> 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).

Too true.

Rick, it's important not to make a false idol out of precedent. When 
people want an Array constructor, they don't think "especially one that 
treats the case where it is called with a single argument of number type 
as a request to make an array with that many holes"!

/be

Too true.

Rick, it's important not to make a false idol out of precedent. When 
people want an `Array` constructor, they don't think "especially one that 
treats the case where it is called with a single argument of number type 
as a request to make an array with that many holes"!