Mate: Gentleman: string ‘b’

Gentleman: Good lord that’s horrific

Nogueira: Gentleman: I just found a lot more easer method

Haverstock: Http://fiddle.jshell.net/4z4m9rpv/1/

Trimble: Hylle: haha thats sketchy.

Farese: It was probably a bug that had to be put in the spec for backwards compatibility

Chwalek: Gentleman: yay, js is now the 4th language I know with “p*** by reference” semantic =

Gentleman: Deniska: JS is strictly p*** by value.

Markland: Like someone just made arguments = whateverStructTheyUsedForRepresentingTheLocals

Gentleman: Deniska: the fact that mutating the arguments object triggers a binding does not make JS “p*** by reference”

Lewark: Deniska: It’s just that the ‘value’ of objects is actually a pointer.

Mate: Deniska: JavaScript has call-by-value semantics in which references to objects are considered to be a type of value. Direct ***ignment to an argument will never be visible outside of a function. For a detailed explanation, see: http://www.jon-carlos.com/2013/is-javascript-call-by-value-or-call-by-reference/

Mate: Hylle: Changed p*** by value to: JavaScript has call-by-value or call-by-sharing, more specifically semantics in which references to objects are considered to be a type of value. Direct ***ignment to an argument will never be visible outside of a function. For a detailed explanation, see: http://www.jon-carlos.com/2013/is-javascript-call-by-value-or-call-by-reference/

Esskew: Yeah, kind of more like p***ing a scary implicit pointer to local var

Dorchy: God dammit it absolutely reeks in here

Nockels: Http://jsfiddle.net/yxmmrw21/ — would this be about the most correct way to get the ‘Texts’ value from each page into a single big array?

Gentleman: Gillice: that works fine, sure. alternatively you could .map and then flatten

Corker: Gentleman: Yeah, that’s what I did at first because I got a bit lost with how .reduce was supposed to work. This seems more straight forward

Gentleman: Well – map + flatten is more straightforward, i’d argue.

Gentleman: But certainly your reduce is more efficient.

Gentleman: Personally i’d start with the map + flatten, and then optimize it to the reduce if profiling proved it was the slowest part of my program.

Gentleman: But the reduce is cool too

Gentleman: With something like lodash’s laziness, you could do a lazy map + flatten and it would combine to a reduce under the hood

Susong: Wouldn’t I still use reduce to flatten it?

Gentleman: But it’s still a separate abstraction

Gentleman: Essentially what you want is a “flatMap” where it’s a map, but it flattens as it goes.

Gentleman: That way you could represent it as flatMappages, function page { return page.Texts; }

Tabb: Gentleman: I’d have to write said function?

Mate: Gentleman: function flattenarr { return arr.reducefunction flat, toFlatten { return flat.concatArray.isArraytoFlatten ? flattentoFlatten : toFlatten; }, ; };

Cobert: It just seems so unnecessary

Footer: I mean isn’t this within the scope of what reduce is for :p

Gentleman: Function flatMaparr, mapper { return arr.reducefunction flat, toFlatten { toFlatten = mappertoFlatten; return flat.concatArray.isArraytoFlatten ? flattentoFlatten : toFlatten; }, ; };

Stuller: I’m not even quite sure what’s happening there

Ve: This is a general function that doesn’t necessarily ***ume it’s an array of arrays?

Gentleman: Gillice: it says, if it’s an array, flatten it recursively

Lucario: I’ll look into that properly another time

Gutschow: Atm I’m not getting paid enough :p

Gentleman: It doesn’t map recursively tho

Gobin: Seems simple enough actually

Quasdorf: I just don’t see the need to use it atm

Greenley: The output of pdf2json is confusing