This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 26, 2022. It is now read-only.
Should these names be added to @@unscopables? #74
Comments
|
Great catch! @michaelficarra, WDYT? |
|
I'm fine either way. We could just add them for consistency, or we could also keep them out until/unless we find they are needed. |
|
I'm leaning towards adding them for consistency and "just in case". V8 patch: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/1390125 |
mathiasbynens
added a commit
to mathiasbynens/proposal-flatMap
that referenced
this issue
Jan 3, 2019
mathiasbynens
added a commit
to mathiasbynens/proposal-flatMap
that referenced
this issue
Jan 3, 2019
|
Looking at this more closely, the text below the PR: #75 |
michaelficarra
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 3, 2019
peterwmwong
pushed a commit
to peterwmwong/v8
that referenced
this issue
Jan 7, 2019
tc39/proposal-flatMap#74 tc39/proposal-flatMap#75 BUG=v8:7220 Change-Id: I93ce66bddbb429beaa7486311f120ec32d6a35fb Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1390125 Reviewed-by: Benedikt Meurer <[email protected]> Commit-Queue: Mathias Bynens <[email protected]> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#58537}
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Array methods added in ES2015 and ES2016 were added to the
@@unscopablesobject attached to Array.prototype, to avoid a set of web-compat worries. ShouldflatandflatMapbe added as well? Or was that considered and rejected for some reason?Note that I'm not aware of any breakage due to them being left off, I just noticed this inconsistency while cleaning up some code.
@mathiasbynens
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: