also ... var s = new Set; ['alpha', 'beta'].forEach(s.add, s);
should do the trick, assuming the signature of "add()" accepts one argument only On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
