Is there a reason subscribe callbacks are called in reverse order?

[micahjon]

Is there a reason subscribe callbacks are called in reverse order?

[jbreckmckye]

HI @micahjon

This was an easy way to ensure a callback could safely remove itself from the list.

Imagine having a set of four callbacks. In interation 2, you call callback 3 (zero-indexed), but it removes itself from the list. Next iteration you are on n=3, which should point to the fourth item, but there are only 3 items in the list.

Whereas, if you process the array in reverse, this is largely a non-issue.

[micahjon]

Thanks @jbreckmckye , I see what you mean.

I suppose the only way of getting around this would be cloning the array before iterating. Feels like it might be worth it to keep the iteration order predictable, but I understand that keeping things super minimalist is important to you.

[jbreckmckye]

That is actually how it used to work; I got rid of it to a) save space and b) eliminate a heap allocation.

As an aside, is there a context where you'd find a FIFO style iteration particularly useful?