to me "del" was simply good enough, at least as fallback On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote:
> It would be tragic to determine future APIs based on _broken_ > implementations of historic/archaic browsers - especially in an age where > the browser isn't the only "client" of the spec. > > > Rick > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > had same thoughts when I wrote this: > https://github.com/WebReflection/es6-collections > > then I have realized older IE compatibility requires the usage of the > string but I would have rather suggested > > del > > instead of remove so get, set, has, del ... all 3 chars, no problems with > reserved keywords > > br > > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Peter Michaux <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The Set proposal has a "delete" method. Old ECMAScript implementations >> do not allow "delete" to appear as a bare method name like >> set.delete('foo') and it is necessary to write the awkward >> set['delete']('foo'). Because of this and knowing polyfills will be >> written to support Set in older implementations, would it be better to >> choose "remove" as the method name so that set.remove('foo') can be >> written in the older implementations? I think this would save a lot of >> unnecessary debugging for cross-browser programming. >> >> Peter >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
