On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
<allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> Array.from and Array.of have a non-throwing IsConstrutor test because they are designed to allow things like this:
>
> let of = Array.of;
> of(1,2,3,4,5);   //Equivalent to: Array.of(1,2,3,4,5)
>
> I don't recall why we provided that functionality.  It doesn't seem to me like a pattern we should want to encourage.

Why not just require:
```javascript
let of = Array.of.bind(Array);
of(1,2,3,4,5);
```

That seems like it would work just as well, and not require special
handling in the spec.

> I'd be happy to eliminate the special handling in Array.of and Array.from if there is consensus that it isn't desirable.

I don't need it.  (Although `es6-shim` currently seems to implement
the special handling correctly.)
  --scott

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> Array.from and Array.of have a non-throwing IsConstrutor test because they are designed to allow things like this:
>
> ```js
> let of = Array.of;
> of(1,2,3,4,5);   //Equivalent to: Array.of(1,2,3,4,5)
> ```
>
> I don't recall why we provided that functionality.  It doesn't seem to me like a pattern we should want to encourage.

Why not just require:
```javascript
let of = Array.of.bind(Array);
of(1,2,3,4,5);
```

That seems like it would work just as well, and not require special
handling in the spec.

> I'd be happy to eliminate the special handling in Array.of and Array.from if there is consensus that it isn't desirable.

I don't need it.  (Although `es6-shim` currently seems to implement
the special handling correctly.)