As long as we don't end up with ambiguous constructor as Array could be ( Array(1) VS Array([1]) ) ... so what if the iterable *is* the value I would like to add() automatically ?
If it's about auto magic population with auto magic filtering and ordering of potential duplicated values ( and already too much magic, imo ) I would keep Set.length 0 accepting 0 to N arguments rather than a single one so yes, spread through iterable would be ideal. On the other hand, Map and WeakMap have different relation, based on pairs, and different kind of pairs ( object only or anything ) What if we leave these constructors in peace and let outer wrappers eventually decide what kind of sorcery should be applied during initialization ? :-) br On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> nope, Set does not even accept arguments as it is now ... does it ? > > > Not now. But this thread suggests changing it to do so. I think I agree > but don't yet have a strong opinion about whether Set should have a single > iteratable parameter or a rest parameter of the individual elements. > > Relevant question: What should spread (... in a call expression) do when > its operand is an iterator or iteratable? Currently spread simple treats > its operand as array-like, in which case I think perhaps Set should stick > with a single parameter. If we can generalize spread to enumerate the > values obtained from an iterator, then I think perhaps Set should go with > the spread parameter. > > Whatever we decide for Set should also guide what we do for Map and > WeakMap of course. > > > >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Dean Landolt <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> if you accept a single argument, of course, but what if you Set(..[1, >>>> 2, 1]) then ? >>> >>> >>> `Set(1, 2, 1)` then? Are you suggesting this should throw? So you'd need >>> to dedupe your arguments before you construct a set with them? Isn't that a >>> primary use case of sets? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> magic add through Set constructor does not sound good to me >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Peter Michaux <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Andrea Giammarchi >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > thinking about the add behavior, where no duplicated values will be >>>>> added, >>>>> > this argument may cause some logic headache anyway >>>>> > >>>>> > Set([1, 2, 1]) what should happen ? >>>>> >>>>> I think that should be a set with one element. The element is an array >>>>> of length three. >>>>> >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
