On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> However, I'm still not quite sure what the use case is for this. For code
> generation, if you know how many elements there are and what they are
> enough to put them in the Array.of(...,...,...) call, why not just use
> [...,...,...]? Unless it's supposed to be used for converting array-likes
> to arrays, where I really don't think this is the best function signature.
> For the dart example, why not just use [] and you avoid the gotcha?
>
>
> map and map-like scenarios are another use case:
>
> [1,2,3].map(Array.of)  // [[1], [2], [3]]
>
> But, as Domenic mentions, it does indeed compete with:
>
> [1,2,3].map(...x => [...x])
>

Yeah, and in that case (making every element of an array an array),
actually:

[1,2,3].map(x => [x])

Which is even shorter.

I really have a hard time seeing any value in having this feature. All the
problems it's supposed to solve (at least the ones presented here) already
have better solutions. :D

Cheers,
Jussi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120828/349b8f55/attachment.html>

Yeah, and in that case (making every element of an array an array),
actually:

```js
[1,2,3].map(x => [x])
```

Which is even shorter.

I really have a hard time seeing any value in having this feature. All the
problems it's supposed to solve (at least the ones presented here) already
have better solutions. :D