Prefer for..of over forEach with lambdas. NFC
#25698
Merged
+136
−141
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sbc100
force-pushed
the
forEach
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5ce00cc to
cac7391
Compare
I imagine theses usages of `forEach` predated the use of `for..of` in our codes and the `for..in` loops were more clumsy. Using simple `for` loops here is generally faster at runtime and simpler to reason about.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I imagine theses usages of
forEachpredated the use offor..ofin our codes and thefor..inloops were more clumsy.Using simple
forloops here is generally faster at runtime and simpler to reason about (sincereturnis not needed in place ofcontinueand the binding ofthisis not hard to reason about, its just the same as the surrounding code).Its also a codesize win.