On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <
inglor at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Array.of sounds expressive only for native speakers.
>
> English is not my first language and it sounded expressive to me. I've
> asked 5 random friends that code and they all said it sounded fine to them.
> While that's not real evidence, it still shows that the "only" doesn't hold
> here.
>

Could you ask what's your and your friend's native language?


>
> > The only valid use case of Array.of is high-order function.
>
> No it's not. The main use case I see is converting array like structures
> (like NodeLists) to arrays without having to do that dirty
> `Array.prototype.splice.call` call:
>
>     Array.of(document.querySelectorAll(".bar"))
>

Oops, it should be Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.bar')).



>
> Higher order functions are a real use case but for sure not the only one.
> I completely agree with Rick that fromElements is confusing for the API
> __especially__ that creating an array out of actual DOM Elements _is_ a use
> case and it implies that it only works for _that_ use case.
>

I already give some alternatives. Just choose what you like.


>
> Like I said, the _optimal_ thing would have been to be able to do
> `Array(arrayLike)` and have it "just work" and create a new array from that
> collection (like collections tend to do in Java, C#, Python etc) but it's
> too late for that. That breaks ES (Array([1]) returns [[1]]). Array.of
> seems very close of that, you make an array of the items passed. The fact
> it's a static method makes it very clear that that's what it does IMO
> (although personally I'd favor putting it somewhere else).
>
>
So could I use your misunderstanding of Array.of/from as a example that
Array.of is a bad name? :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131219/fc8ef796/attachment.html>

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Benjamin (Inglor) Gruenbaum <inglor at gmail.com> wrote:

> English is not my first language and it sounded expressive to me. I've
> asked 5 random friends that code and they all said it sounded fine to them.
> While that's not real evidence, it still shows that the "only" doesn't hold
> here.

Could you ask what's your and your friend's native language?

> No it's not. The main use case I see is converting array like structures
> (like NodeLists) to arrays without having to do that dirty
> `Array.prototype.splice.call` call:
>
> ```js
> Array.of(document.querySelectorAll(".bar"))
> ```

Oops, it should be `Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('.bar'))`.



> Higher order functions are a real use case but for sure not the only one.
> I completely agree with Rick that fromElements is confusing for the API
> __especially__ that creating an array out of actual DOM Elements _is_ a use
> case and it implies that it only works for _that_ use case.
>

I already give some alternatives. Just choose what you like.


> Like I said, the _optimal_ thing would have been to be able to do
> `Array(arrayLike)` and have it "just work" and create a new array from that
> collection (like collections tend to do in Java, C#, Python etc) but it's
> too late for that. That breaks ES (`Array([1])` returns `[[1]]`). `Array.of`
> seems very close of that, you make an array of the items passed. The fact
> it's a static method makes it very clear that that's what it does IMO
> (although personally I'd favor putting it somewhere else).
>
>

So could I use your misunderstanding of `Array.of`/`from` as a example that
`Array.of` is a bad name? :)