On Sunday, May 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Strager Neds wrote: > I agree with Alle > >
> I don't see the point in adding String#contains if `str.indexOf(x) >= > 0` is equivalent (just like with arrays). > > For sets, doing something like indexOf doesn't make sense (and a large > part of sets is testing for inclusion, not indexing). For maps, the > 'in' operator is unsuitable (as we all know from using a plain object > as a hash map). Thus, both deserve a specialized method for these > predicates. > > In a further attempt to avoid confusion, would distinct 'hasKey' and > 'hasValue' for Map.prototype be a good idea (instead of jumping around > between has, contains, includes, isMember, etc.)? > > (I'm at a loss to find the 'spec' being discussed; could someone point > me in the right direction? I'm new to this list.) > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets Rick > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]> wrote: > > These really don't seem all that similar: > > > > Map "has" is looking for a specific key used for the elements of a > > collection (Sets can be thought of as collections where keys and values area > > always the same) > > String "contains" is a search for a specific sequence of element values. > > One is about keys, the other is about values. One is about single > > elements, the other is about sequences of elements. > > > > Consistent naming is important, but in this case I think using the same name > > would be conflating things that are actually quite different. > > > > It seems to be that there are at least three dimensions of variability we > > should be considering when selecting consistent names for these kinds of > > operations: > > > > 1) are they operating over object properties or elements of an abstract > > collection > > 2) are the looking at keys or at values > > 3) are they looking at individual elements or at sequences of elements > > > > We wouldn't fill in this entire matrix and we have to live with legacy > > naming decisions, but it would be nice if going forward we consistently used > > method names that conformed to such a model. > > > > Allen > > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The lack of consistency between the naming of > > `String.prototype.contains` and `(Set|Map).prototype.has` bothers me > > (a little). > > > > Both Ruby and Python display consistency for this (through the > > `include?` instance method and `in` operator respectively). > > > > Maybe that's been discussed on the list already (can't find a search > > function for the archives, unfortunately). > > > > If not, may I suggest both methods should be named the same? > > > > And for extra consistency, an Array.prototype.(contains|has) would > > also be a nice addition. > > > > Thanks for your time, > > > > --tobie > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
