mainly me too, and I also agree delete is the right word for that over remove.
I would probably go for "del" as enhanced API for code that should run across browsers ... my main concern is that shims sometimes make developers believe "that's the way" ( as libraries do in any case ) br On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Peter Michaux <[email protected]>wrote: > I was talking about shims. > > PEter > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are the Set, Map, etc types going to be implemented in any engine that > doesn't already have ES5 unreserved property name semantics? > > > > Or are we talking about implementing shims in non-ES6 engines (and so > possibly ES<5)? > > > > --Oliver > > > > On Feb 12, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
