Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Herby Vojčík <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: After a little more experimenting with sets (still a really big fan!!), I've come across an interesting problem. Basically, I found myself using a set and then wanting to convert that into JSON for storage. JSON.stringify() run on a set returns "{}", because it's an object without any enumerable properties. I'm wondering if that's the correct behavior because a set is really more like an array than it is an object, and perhaps it would be best to define a toJSON() method for sets such as: Set.prototype.toJSON = function() { return Array.from(this); It depends... you should be able to reread it, so the best thing would proably be to use matching set of transformers for both stringify and parse. I personally would rather see something like { _Set_from_: Array.from(this) } here. }; The revived array can be passed as an arg to new Set(revived) : new Set(JSON.parse(s.toJSON()))
I am talking about deep nested structure with (possibly) multiple sets all over. Your solution is unusable, you need to explicitly know where the arrayified sets are.
Introducing another Set constructor just to wrap the above is early-warning feature creep. toJSON is an intuitive addition Rick
Herby _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
