That = in += is redundant since the reducer only needs to return the new value, not change the old one. I mean, it'll still work, because the correct value is returned, but there's no need in changing the passed-in accumulator.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
return (accumulator += (item === "Bob" ?1:0));
this way(using "?:" or "&&||" after equal sign) works better in lots of situation
That
=in+=is redundant since the reducer only needs to return the new value, not change the old one. I mean, it'll still work, because the correct value is returned, but there's no need in changing the passed-in accumulator.