can.List.filter

[stevenvachon]

For times when removing multiple indexes, looping in reverse order is fastest. I can't think of any other time that I use reverse loops, so instead of requesting a reverse option in .forEach(), a request is being made for a .filter() method.

list.filter( function(el, index, list)
{
    return el.attr("something") !== "poop";
}, this);

@param {function()} callback A function to call with each element of the list. Returning false will remove the index.
@param {Object} thisArg The object to use as this inside the callback.

---

Should we also add a can.filter()?

[justinbmeyer]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm gonna play devils advocate here:

You don't need to loop in reverse order to remove multiple indexes, you can use a while loop.

Calling .reverse() isn't that bad. It is pretty darn fast and won't change the limiting function of your code.

I'd rather just add a reject method to lists that would remove those items like underscore's reject

[stevenvachon]

Even with a while() loop, going backwards is still faster than forwards because setting the iterator back a value isn't necessary. Great idea about the .reject() method. Original post updated.

[stevenvachon]

After thinking a little more, I think that a .filter() would be better as its name suggests working both for "keeping" as well as "removing".