The unfortunate result, however, is that a subclass that is *more*
restrictive than the base class is not possible to write robustly - namely,
if someone does `Set.prototype.add.call`, they'll bypass any of the
criteria you've set up in the subclass.
I would have vastly preferred that the base
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:03 PM Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> Yes, exactly.
Thanks!
-- T.J. Crowder
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> On Oct 10, 2018, at 3:42 AM, T.J. Crowder
> wrote:
>
> the ambiguity that -0 and +0 are often hard to distinguish (Number's
> `toString` returns `"0"` for both, for instance; operations involving them
> largely don't care about the pseudo-sign of 0). Is that the rationale?
> Basically,
Negative zero (-0) is the only value you can't use as a Map key or a Set
value. Map's [`set`][1] and Set's [`add`][2] both explicitly replace it
with +0. MDN makes a point of saying that "early drafts" of the ES2015 spec
treated +0 and -0 as distinct, but that "changed" in ES2015. Looking at
some
4 matches
Mail list logo
