![function getItemsWithNext() {
return items
.filter(item => {
if (isDeleted(item)) {
return false
}
return true
})
.map((item, i) => {
const next = items[i + 1]
return {
item,
next,
}
})
}](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:p2cp5gopk7mgjegy6wadk3ep/bafkreifjayqiaf2nznful46gpc5kf2y5gjkktlmophvgefr2nvp7uorxtm "function getItemsWithNext() {
return items
.filter(item => {
if (isDeleted(item)) {
return false
}
return true
})
.map((item, i) => {
const next = items[i + 1]
return {
item,
next,
}
})
}")
Would be an option, but wouldn't improve performance.
You could use reduce() instead: stackoverflow.com/questions/24...
Or use a normal loop.
2> Or use a normal loop.
i was waiting for someone to say that
you don't have a function that needs to do two things, you have two distinct problems to solve and a stack of code that hides bugs and performance issues
1 8Samuel
@samuel.fm
That is the correct criticism yep. would’ve sidestepped this bug completely
1 2chelsea bridgesometimes i stop shitposting long enough to be coherent
1 4Samuelyou are truly multifaceted :)
1 2chelsea bridgeactually atproto is multifaceted
1