[spinlock]

You know what's weird, I don't like the arrow functions in es6. And, I'm a coffeescript guy. I just don't like that the syntax is conditional on so many different things. The number of parameters, line length, etc...

I just wrote this function and used `function` rather than `=>` because I couldn't get the syntax right using an arrow function:

    const showTable = ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce(
      function (previous, channel) { return previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]); },
      false
    );

Of course, the inconsistencies are what I don't like about js in general.

[iso-8859-1]

It's not that hard...

    ["email", "phone", "website"].reduce(
      (previous, channel) => previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]),
      false
    );

But I'd prefer the more readable:

    const hasNoEmail = /^\s*$/.test(institution.email || '');
    const hasNoPhone = /^\s*$/.test(institution.phone || '');
    const hasNoWebsite = /^\s*$/.test(institution.website || '');
    const hasAny = !(hasNoEmail && hasNoPhone && hasNoWebsite);

[charrondev]

Well for one you're missing a closing } in that function. But you could just do

  const showTable = ["email", "phone","website"]
    .reduce((previous, channel) => { return previous || !!institution[channel] &&    !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel])
  }), false)

You can always just replace

  function() {

with

  () => {

and the only difference between the two would be binding this. Or you could do this:

  const showsTable = ["email", "phone", "website"]
    .reduce((previous, channel) => previous || !!institution[channel] && !/^\s*$/.test(institution[channel]), false)

[spinlock]

But, that's kinda my point. You shouldn't need the { for a one line function.

also, I tried the solution you gave and it doesn't work :(

[kevincennis]

FWIW, Array.prototype.some() would probably be more idiomatic here.

[spinlock]

Where were you on my code review :) Great suggestion.