Seems perfectly logical to me: an array of length 5 with four populated elements and one empty one (3). Though I did double-check my understanding that the length property would report 5 rather than 4 (it does).
What looks out of place to you in that example?
Would it make more sense to you with a very slightly less arbitrary example, perhaps arr = ['Value for 0', 'Value for 1', , 'Value for 3', 'Value for 4']; instead of simple mapping ints to ints?
Because array contents are mutable [even if the array variable itself is declared const] that third index may be populated at a later point in the code.
Most languages don't have sparse arrays so it's really weird.
> Would it make more sense to you with a very slightly less arbitrary example, perhaps arr = ['Value for 0', 'Value for 1', , 'Value for 3', 'Value for 4']; instead of simple mapping ints to ints?
You'd usually put an explicit `null` there, especially as HOFs skip "empty" array cells so
['Value for 0', 'Value for 1', , 'Value for 3', 'Value for 4'].map(_=>1)
Or it is under ideal conditions/weight, if you use a smaller example rider but users tend to be heavier (maybe scooter riders don't like walking as much?) then that would lead to reduced mileage, pure speculation of course.
Not related to the article but the show stopper for me trying to install/test this email reader is that it won't work with just a generic IMAP server. I've got to be using Outlook or Office365 or whatever.
You're right. It is unusual. We went with Exchange Web Services first instead of IMAP. Our initial target market were larger companies and we wanted to have deep integration with their Exchange servers (Calendars, Contacts, etc).
But it would have taken you even longer--or more likely would have been impossible for you--if we hadn't collected this information and put all it one place.
Kedit. The 'all' command is unbeatable for looking at large log files and quickly moving around a file. Many editors have a similar feature but none do it better or nearly as fast as Kedit.
