Turning "we try hard not to break sites if we can avoid it" into a morally suspect position strikes me as overheated rhetoric. The details matter. smoosh() is a stupid name, but changing contains() to includes() was a reasonable thing to do to avoid breaking sites.
-
-
(for example, how common, empirically, are bugs caused by the difference between the proposed spec and the in-the-wild implementation)
Show this thread -
Also, we could discuss the possibility of adopting the in-the-wild semantics (flatten Infinity levels by default) on a dedicated GitHub issue.
Show this thread -
All of that is careful but important work and you can help with it if you're interested.
Show this thread -
Not helping: starting campaigns to "force" those "out of touch" TC39 "neckbeards" to "stop holding the web back". You're talking to real people who write JavaScript every day who are trying to do a job that is already difficult. Please send help.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
collapseDimension(n=1)? I think the reason the "flatten" controversy exists is because it's not obvious how deep the flattening is just from the name, so different groups came to different conclusions. An explicitly singular name might work better.
-
unnest is also pretty good,https://twitter.com/douxsey03/status/971700967208079360 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I like merge()
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.