True. Assuming that the spread operator works on any iterable, it is also the same as new Set(...iterable)
On Feb 13, 2012, at 10:14 , Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > Set.fromIterable() as factory is basically same as > > var s = Set.apply(null, ['alpha', 'beta']); > > since as it is for all native functions the constructor is a factory itself > and no need to "new" > > my 2 cents, > br > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > My suspicion: All these features make sense for the full-blown collections > API, but for sets I’m not sure at which point they wouldn’t be “simple”, any > more. > > Oliver Hunt makes a good case: “With the existence of the spread operator I > think that there's a good > argument in favour of the multiple parameters approach.” > > An additional option is to introduce a “static” factory method: > Set.fromIterable(). > > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:29 , Michael A. Smith wrote: > >> …But we wouldn't want to require the arguments to the set constructor >> to require instantiation itself/themselves, right? If a set has to be >> constructed with an Iterable, and cannot (also) be constructed with >> individual atoms, then you'll end up with use cases like Set(['foo', >> 'bar', 'baz']), which requires two constructions, one of which is >> essentially a waste. If allowing both forms of the constructor is >> distasteful, then why not just go with the multiple parameters, >> approach, and implement toSet() as a method on appropriate Iterables? >> >> -Michael A. Smith >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Erik Arvidsson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The default argument should probably just be an iterable. >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2012 4:50 PM, "Oliver Hunt" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I saw a reference to it being modified to take an array(-like?) as a >>>> parameter. While I can see an argument in favour of a single array >>>> argument >>>> I can also see using a set of parameters that initially populate the set. >>>> We just shouldn't allow both (and introduce another version of the horror >>>> that is the Array constructor). >>>> >>>> With the existence of the spread operator I think that there's a good >>>> argument in favour of the multiple parameters approach. > > -- > 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 > > -- 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
