I agree w/ Alex--don't feel strongly that this is a problem worth adding
more API methods for.


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Alex Zylman <notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In lib/understream.coffee:
>
> > @@ -59,13 +58,23 @@ class Understream
> >          str += "#{stream.constructor.name}(#{stream._writableState?.length or ''} #{stream._readableState?.length or ''}) "
> >        console.log str
> >      interval = setInterval report, 5000
> > +    # If the callback has arity 2, assume that they want us to aggregate all results in an array and
> > +    # pass that to the callback.
> > +    if cb.length is 2
>
> I'm fine with making this behavior a different function, if we can come up
> with a good/clear/concise name for both (I don't think runError fits the
> bill).
>
> However, I don't feel that strongly that this is a problem. I think it'd
> be pretty weird to assume that your inputs to a function couldn't affect
> the computational complexity, unless the complexity is documented - witness
> the sorted option that underscore uses in some places, where they use
> completely different algorithms internally for the same function.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/Clever/understream/pull/15/files#r6806769>
> .
>