Agreed, my "remove is the best all-around name" was biased toward the
past. We can hang tough. This isn't a huge hardship. Indeed way back in
1996 when Nick Thompson and I connected JS and Java at Netscape, some
Java APIs required, e.g. file['delete']() instead of file.delete(). I
wish I had not reserved property names in '95. Fixed in ES5!
/be
Mark S. Miller wrote:
I feel strongly that "delete" is the right name for this. Currently,
all the method names (get, set, has, delete) relate directly to the
names associated with these operations when applied to properties,
making them more mnemonic.
The need to say collection['delete'](...) rather than
collection.delete(...) is only a temporary measure until the ES3
browsers fade out enough to either 1) be ignored, or 2) be supported
only as the target of an ES5/6 -> ES3 translation. Granted this will
take years. But we'll be living with these choices for many more years
after that.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:11 PM, 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
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
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
