Hi Axel, yes, I would like to extend their constructor in this way. However, I'm not sure how to spec it -- help appreciated. The problem is that the comparator needs to provide both an equivalence operation and a corresponding hash operation. When these agree, all is well. What should we specify happens when passing in a misbehaving comparator? The dilemma is that 1) detecting misbehavior is expensive, 2) having a deterministic collection misbehavior in the face of comparator misbehavior seems hard, and 3) we'd like to avoid yet more under-specification. The similar under-specification of Array.prototype.sort is already bad enough.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:22 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets > > Currently, using Object.is() is hard-coded. But one could allow a > comparator function being handed in (with Object.is being the default). > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > [email protected] > > home: rauschma.de > twitter: twitter.com/rauschma > blog: 2ality.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
