Cyril Auburtin (2018-06-24T15:34:14.000Z)
What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_, i)
=> ..)`
It's very common to use it nowadays

on the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more
powerful to build any kind of ranges

but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length', and
have to use the second callback argument.

I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1) // [1,
3, 5, 7]` I think `Array.build` was proposed a long time ago (array.build)

Le mer. 14 déc. 2016 à 21:28, Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> a écrit :

> IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you
> could need here without special syntax.
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <jmar777 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
>> have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
>> expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <
>> oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I understand.
>> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>>
>> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
>> cases?
>>
>> ```
>> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
>> vs
>> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
>> ```
>>
>> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>>
>> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearnshaw at gmail.com>:
>>
>> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage.  Vendors aren't keen on
>> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
>> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically  impossible.
>>
>>
>> It's not just the incompatibility either.  You also introduce an
>> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
>> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>>
>>
>> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
>> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I understood it.
>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Martin
>> 661.312.3853
>> http://devsmash.com
>> @jmar777
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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/20180624/b4c57c48/attachment.html>
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2018-06-24T16:14:30.274Z)
What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_, i) => ..)`

It's very common to use it nowadays

on the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more
powerful to build any kind of ranges

but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length', and
have to use the second callback argument.

I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1)`(gives [1, 3, 5, 7])

I think [`Array.build`](http://array.build) was proposed a long time ago
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2018-06-24T15:37:44.093Z)
What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_, i) => ..)`

It's very common to use it nowadays

on the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more
powerful to build any kind of ranges

but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length', and
have to use the second callback argument.

I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1)`(gives [1, 3, 5, 7])

I think [`Array.build`](http://array.build) was proposed a long time ago

Le mer. 14 déc. 2016 à 21:28, Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> a écrit :
cyril.auburtin at gmail.com (2018-06-24T15:37:12.562Z)
What I'd really like is something to avoid `Array.from({length: n}, (_, i) => ..)`

It's very common to use it nowadays

on the + side, it's a wider feature than range, the callback is more
powerful to build any kind of ranges

but it feels quite hacky and verbose. you can make a typo on 'length', and
have to use the second callback argument.

I'd like a lot a `Array.whateverNameAsShortAsPossible(4, i => 2*i+1)`(gives [1, 3, 5, 7])

I think `Array.build` was proposed a long time ago (array.build)

Le mer. 14 déc. 2016 à 21:28, Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com> a écrit :