Thaddee Tyl wrote:
Related:
I cannot find the reason why sets and maps were harmoni'ed with
classes[1].
If you mean specified with classes, I flinched too -- especially at
private(this), syntax that is dead on arrival for classes (which are
still not likely to make it into ES6 IMHO).
IIRC Mark used classes to avoid hand-expanding to more verbose
functions, closures, freeze and seal calls, etc.
They do support `mySet["foo"]` for `mySet.has("foo")` and
`for (something of mySet)` for iteration, do they not?
No to mySet["foo"], yes to iteration (the topic at hand).
Classes don't
have operator overloading, so using classes makes it harder to see the
usual syntax form.
Not sure about this. You see lack of mySet["foo"] clearly, you just
don't expect that kind of support to be missing ;-).
Shouldn't we use proxies instead?
No, because we do not want the overhead of proxies for maps and sets, in
implementations, or anything observable that might leak to indicate
proxy-ness.
/be
[1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets
_______________________________________________
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
