Mixing
Is is possible to create a for-of loop without a variable?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Suppose I have a function like this:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const x of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
eslint will complain that x is not used, and indeed it isn't.
Can I write a for-of loop that does not declare any variables?
javascript for-loop
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Suppose I have a function like this:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const x of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
eslint will complain that x is not used, and indeed it isn't.
Can I write a for-of loop that does not declare any variables?
javascript for-loop
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
2
Maybe for what you need with anreturn xs.length > 0is enough for you.
– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
2
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have alengthproperty.
– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable_?
– Bergi
10 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like"varsIgnorePattern": "^_"should be the default eslint configuration
– Bergi
5 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Suppose I have a function like this:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const x of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
eslint will complain that x is not used, and indeed it isn't.
Can I write a for-of loop that does not declare any variables?
javascript for-loop
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
Suppose I have a function like this:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const x of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
eslint will complain that x is not used, and indeed it isn't.
Can I write a for-of loop that does not declare any variables?
javascript for-loop
javascript for-loop
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
asked 19 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
7,18863581
2
Maybe for what you need with anreturn xs.length > 0is enough for you.
– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
2
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have alengthproperty.
– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable_?
– Bergi
10 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like"varsIgnorePattern": "^_"should be the default eslint configuration
– Bergi
5 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
2
Maybe for what you need with anreturn xs.length > 0is enough for you.
– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
2
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have alengthproperty.
– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable_?
– Bergi
10 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like"varsIgnorePattern": "^_"should be the default eslint configuration
– Bergi
5 mins ago
2
2
Maybe for what you need with an
return xs.length > 0 is enough for you.– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
Maybe for what you need with an
return xs.length > 0 is enough for you.– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
2
2
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have a
length property.– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have a
length property.– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable
_?– Bergi
10 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable
_?– Bergi
10 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like
"varsIgnorePattern": "^_" should be the default eslint configuration– Bergi
5 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like
"varsIgnorePattern": "^_" should be the default eslint configuration– Bergi
5 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
No, you can't. You can use the iterator¹ directly, though:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
Or if you want to ensure you proactively release any resources the iterator holds (rather than waiting for them to be released automatically — think DB connection in a generator function or similar):
const hasAny = xs =>
const it = xs[Symbol.iterator]();
const result = it.next().done;
if (it.return) it.return();
return result;
;
Live Example:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // true¹ (For any who don't happen to know, for-of uses an iterator under the covers.)
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources
– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with afinallyclause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.
– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
According to ESLint issue #2173, you can set a comment to ignore the unused variable. For that, use the following code:
var some_unused_variable; // eslint-disable-line no-unused-vars
A community member of ESLint also states:
We now have a
varsIgnorePatternoption available for this use case (best suited for ignoring specific unused variable names or patterns across all your files).
And documentation states:
The varsIgnorePattern option specifies exceptions not to check for usage: variables whose names match a regexp pattern. For example, variables whose names contain ignored or Ignored.
Examples of correct code for the "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" option:
/*eslint no-unused-vars: ["error", "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" ]*/
var firstVarIgnored = 1;
var secondVar = 2;
console.log(secondVar);
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in afor-ofloop.
– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can use destructuring with an empty object:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
UPDATE: This does not work when the list contains undefined.
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. TryhasAny([1])
– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
... which doesn't work withundefined.
– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value isnullorundefined.
– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
No, you can't. You can use the iterator¹ directly, though:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
Or if you want to ensure you proactively release any resources the iterator holds (rather than waiting for them to be released automatically — think DB connection in a generator function or similar):
const hasAny = xs =>
const it = xs[Symbol.iterator]();
const result = it.next().done;
if (it.return) it.return();
return result;
;
Live Example:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // true¹ (For any who don't happen to know, for-of uses an iterator under the covers.)
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources
– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with afinallyclause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.
– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
No, you can't. You can use the iterator¹ directly, though:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
Or if you want to ensure you proactively release any resources the iterator holds (rather than waiting for them to be released automatically — think DB connection in a generator function or similar):
const hasAny = xs =>
const it = xs[Symbol.iterator]();
const result = it.next().done;
if (it.return) it.return();
return result;
;
Live Example:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // true¹ (For any who don't happen to know, for-of uses an iterator under the covers.)
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources
– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with afinallyclause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.
– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
No, you can't. You can use the iterator¹ directly, though:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
Or if you want to ensure you proactively release any resources the iterator holds (rather than waiting for them to be released automatically — think DB connection in a generator function or similar):
const hasAny = xs =>
const it = xs[Symbol.iterator]();
const result = it.next().done;
if (it.return) it.return();
return result;
;
Live Example:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // true¹ (For any who don't happen to know, for-of uses an iterator under the covers.)
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
No, you can't. You can use the iterator¹ directly, though:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
Or if you want to ensure you proactively release any resources the iterator holds (rather than waiting for them to be released automatically — think DB connection in a generator function or similar):
const hasAny = xs =>
const it = xs[Symbol.iterator]();
const result = it.next().done;
if (it.return) it.return();
return result;
;
Live Example:
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // true¹ (For any who don't happen to know, for-of uses an iterator under the covers.)
const hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // trueconst hasAny = xs => !xs[Symbol.iterator]().next().done;
console.log(hasAny()); // false
console.log(hasAny([1])); // trueanswered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
edited 6 mins ago
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
answered 17 mins ago
T.J. Crowder
657k11311591257
657k11311591257
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources
– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with afinallyclause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.
– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
add a comment |Â
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources
– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with afinallyclause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.
– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources– Bergi
13 mins ago
//FIXME this doesn't .return() the iterator to close resources– Bergi
13 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
@Bergi - Meh, it'll get released immediately by any half-decent engine. But I'll add an option.
– T.J. Crowder
12 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with a
finally clause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.– Bergi
8 mins ago
I didn't mean anything getting garbage collected, I meant e.g. generator functions with a
finally clause that actively closes (not just forgets) a connection, rejects a transactions or something.– Bergi
8 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
@Bergi - Oh, I understand. Eventually GC should get to all of those, since nothing can guarantee proactive cleanup. Still, added the option.
– T.J. Crowder
6 mins ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
Assuming a network connection that needs to be explicitly closed, the event handler that still waits for packets does itself prevent the connection instance from being garbage-collected. Sure, many constructs don't guarantee active termination, but some cases require them - and would leak otherwise.
– Bergi
34 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
According to ESLint issue #2173, you can set a comment to ignore the unused variable. For that, use the following code:
var some_unused_variable; // eslint-disable-line no-unused-vars
A community member of ESLint also states:
We now have a
varsIgnorePatternoption available for this use case (best suited for ignoring specific unused variable names or patterns across all your files).
And documentation states:
The varsIgnorePattern option specifies exceptions not to check for usage: variables whose names match a regexp pattern. For example, variables whose names contain ignored or Ignored.
Examples of correct code for the "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" option:
/*eslint no-unused-vars: ["error", "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" ]*/
var firstVarIgnored = 1;
var secondVar = 2;
console.log(secondVar);
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in afor-ofloop.
– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
According to ESLint issue #2173, you can set a comment to ignore the unused variable. For that, use the following code:
var some_unused_variable; // eslint-disable-line no-unused-vars
A community member of ESLint also states:
We now have a
varsIgnorePatternoption available for this use case (best suited for ignoring specific unused variable names or patterns across all your files).
And documentation states:
The varsIgnorePattern option specifies exceptions not to check for usage: variables whose names match a regexp pattern. For example, variables whose names contain ignored or Ignored.
Examples of correct code for the "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" option:
/*eslint no-unused-vars: ["error", "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" ]*/
var firstVarIgnored = 1;
var secondVar = 2;
console.log(secondVar);
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in afor-ofloop.
– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
According to ESLint issue #2173, you can set a comment to ignore the unused variable. For that, use the following code:
var some_unused_variable; // eslint-disable-line no-unused-vars
A community member of ESLint also states:
We now have a
varsIgnorePatternoption available for this use case (best suited for ignoring specific unused variable names or patterns across all your files).
And documentation states:
The varsIgnorePattern option specifies exceptions not to check for usage: variables whose names match a regexp pattern. For example, variables whose names contain ignored or Ignored.
Examples of correct code for the "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" option:
/*eslint no-unused-vars: ["error", "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" ]*/
var firstVarIgnored = 1;
var secondVar = 2;
console.log(secondVar);
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
According to ESLint issue #2173, you can set a comment to ignore the unused variable. For that, use the following code:
var some_unused_variable; // eslint-disable-line no-unused-vars
A community member of ESLint also states:
We now have a
varsIgnorePatternoption available for this use case (best suited for ignoring specific unused variable names or patterns across all your files).
And documentation states:
The varsIgnorePattern option specifies exceptions not to check for usage: variables whose names match a regexp pattern. For example, variables whose names contain ignored or Ignored.
Examples of correct code for the "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" option:
/*eslint no-unused-vars: ["error", "varsIgnorePattern": "[iI]gnored" ]*/
var firstVarIgnored = 1;
var secondVar = 2;
console.log(secondVar);
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
answered 9 mins ago
E. Zacarias
7510
7510
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in afor-ofloop.
– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in afor-ofloop.
– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
1
1
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in a
for-of loop.– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
This is true, but it's not an answer to the question. The question doesn't ask how to make ESLint stop complaining. It asks if you can avoid declaring a variable in a
for-of loop.– T.J. Crowder
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can use destructuring with an empty object:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
UPDATE: This does not work when the list contains undefined.
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. TryhasAny([1])
– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
... which doesn't work withundefined.
– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value isnullorundefined.
– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
You can use destructuring with an empty object:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
UPDATE: This does not work when the list contains undefined.
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. TryhasAny([1])
– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
... which doesn't work withundefined.
– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value isnullorundefined.
– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
You can use destructuring with an empty object:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
UPDATE: This does not work when the list contains undefined.
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
You can use destructuring with an empty object:
const hasAny = xs =>
for (const of xs)
return true;
return false;
;
UPDATE: This does not work when the list contains undefined.
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
edited 5 mins ago
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
answered 15 mins ago
sdgfsdh
7,18863581
7,18863581
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. TryhasAny([1])
– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
... which doesn't work withundefined.
– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value isnullorundefined.
– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. TryhasAny([1])
– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
... which doesn't work withundefined.
– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value isnullorundefined.
– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
the real beauty of javascript :)
– Isitar
12 mins ago
1
1
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. Try
hasAny([1])– Bergi
12 mins ago
Nope, this doesn't work for anything that is not an iterable of iterables. Try
hasAny([1])– Bergi
12 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
@Bergi my mistake, updated to use
– sdgfsdh
9 mins ago
1
1
... which doesn't work with
undefined.– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
... which doesn't work with
undefined.– sdgfsdh
8 mins ago
2
2
Now it fails if the iterable's first value is
null or undefined.– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
Now it fails if the iterable's first value is
null or undefined.– T.J. Crowder
8 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52667690%2fis-is-possible-to-create-a-for-of-loop-without-a-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Maybe for what you need with an
return xs.length > 0is enough for you.– Jesús Magallón
15 mins ago
2
@JesúsMagallón - Not all iterables have a
lengthproperty.– T.J. Crowder
15 mins ago
Would eslint be happy if you named the variable
_?– Bergi
10 mins ago
@Bergi sadly this isn't ML
– sdgfsdh
7 mins ago
@sdgfsdh looks like
"varsIgnorePattern": "^_"should be the default eslint configuration– Bergi
5 mins ago