W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: ArrayClass should imply @@isConcatSpreadable

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:08:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei_E_tUzbJ+FFO5AkefEKvvy+JRW9QjtfUx6UKrtWejLHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> If there is a better proposal for the "return an array that can be read but
> not written but I can still write to it" use case, I'm all ears.

My suggestion has been:

Return a frozen (and thus immutable) Array.
When you need to change the contents of the array, create a new frozen
Array which contains the new Array contents.

In the case of gamepads, the second rule would kick in when a gamepad
was connected or disconnected.

The "i don't want others to change the array, but I want to be able to
do so myself" is basically a "live array", which a lot of people has
expressed dislike of. So maybe it's something we should avoid.

My proposal above has two nice properties:

x.arrayProp === x.arrayProp returns true.
x.arrayProp behaves entirely like a normal array (including
Array.isArray and Array.concat), as long as you don't try to mutate
it.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 00:09:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:19 UTC