On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> That is excellent! Has all the upsides of the best of the other proposals and none of the downsides.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Corey Frang <gnarf37 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to provide another way of working around it:
>
> var empty = {}; // or even a symbol?
>
> function splice(start = empty, count = 0, ...items) {
> if (start === empty) { ...
> }
>
No, this doesn't work because then both
[1,2,3].splice()
[1.2.3].splice(undefined)
will both result in start === empty. But for web compatibility they must be treated differently.
Allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131111/0929c516/attachment-0001.html>
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-11-15T18:54:23.548Z)
No, this doesn't work because then both
```js
[1,2,3].splice()
[1.2.3].splice(undefined)
```
will both result in start === empty. But for web compatibility they must be treated differently.
On Nov 11, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > That is excellent! Has all the upsides of the best of the other proposals and none of the downsides. > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Corey Frang <gnarf37 at gmail.com> wrote: > Just to provide another way of working around it: > > var empty = {}; // or even a symbol? > > function splice(start = empty, count = 0, ...items) { > if (start === empty) { ... > } > No, this doesn't work because then both [1,2,3].splice() [1.2.3].splice(undefined) will both result in start === empty. But for web compatibility they must be treated differently. Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131111/0929c516/attachment-0001.html>