My first post to this mailing list, so hi everyone!

I agree with Domenic, Array.fromElements would be a good name (though I
have no problem with Array.of). Just don't go with Array.new (I agree with
Rick here, it should match the constructor - Array should be no exception,
broken constructor or not)!


/ Mikael


2012/8/28 Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>

> Array.fromElements is solid, especially considering how rarely this will
> be used, especially given that it competes in ES6 code with `...x => [...x]`
>
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 23:42, "程劭非" <csf178 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, as a developer (but not English native speaker), I really feel
> > uncomfortable with the name “of”.
> >
> > Considering we already have
> >    Object.create
> >    String.fromCharCode
> >
> > To keep align with them, I belive “create” or “fromElements” might be
> > better choices.
> >
> >
> > 2012/8/27 Shijun He <hax.sfo at gmail.com>:
> >> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120828/460f17e1/attachment.html>

I agree with Domenic, `Array.fromElements` would be a good name (though I
have no problem with `Array.of`). Just don't go with `Array.new` (I agree with
Rick here, it should match the constructor - `Array` should be no exception,
broken constructor or not)!