remove is OK too, I proposed del 'cause used already in Python and probably others and it's just a shortcut for the action ... I would mind an "escape" button in my keyboard :-)
br On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > JS avoids cybercrud names where possible, following Java which followed > Smalltalk. But we do prefer concise verb-only methods where possible (no > Kingdom of Nouns AbstractFactoryFactoryImpl names as in real-world Java; > Smalltalk is better precedent but message selectors can afford to be more > verbose when strung together than a single method name in JS should be). > > So 'del' is too short. We had remove at some point, could go back to it. > That seems like the best all-around name. > > Thinking of collection *protocols* with suites of methods that have > canonical names (get, force, set, has, remove) helps. > > /be > > Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > >> to me "del" was simply good enough, at least as fallback >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]<mailto: >> [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] >> <mailto:andrea.giammarchi@**gmail.com<[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> +1 >>> >>> had same thoughts when I wrote this: >>> >>> https://github.com/**WebReflection/es6-collections<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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]**> >>> >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
