Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
1–10 of 153 posts
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#2Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#3Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
A quick read suggests that it adds negative indexing from the end of the array.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#4Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
Accessing negative indexes currently returns undefined. This adds support for indexing from the end of an array with negative numbers.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#5Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
It's a function object then.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#6Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
Proposal hosted on GitHub explains the reasoning behind it https://github.com/tc39/proposal-relative-indexing-method
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#7Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
In addition to negative index support, a function is more easily composable e.g. converting a list of indices to a list of objects: `indices.map(myObjectArr.at)`
I've lost count on how many times I've wrote this function manually.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#8Am I reading this correctly — it's an alias for arr[i] and str[i]? I know languages like Ruby have arr.at(i), but why?
A quick read suggests that it adds negative indexing from the end of the array.
Imho that violates the principle of least astonishment - that "at" would have such different behavior from "[]" for negative numbers.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#9So instead of fixing the language and allow to use array[-1], they add an other way to access array element.
This is why I don't like JavaScript, instead of fixing feature, they add new feature to fix previous feature.
Re: Stage 3 Proposal: Array.prototype.at
#10So instead of fixing the language and allow to use array[-1], they add an other way to access array element. This is why I don't like JavaScript, instead of fixing feature, they add new feature to fix previous feature.
The problem with JS language development is the mountain of code that it would break if you do anything except append features.
array[-1] = “foo”