On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. Fair enough, my solution definitely doesn't scale. In that case, I'd say it's not the language's job to try and guess what the user code wanted to do with a serious of deeply nested, stringified arrays in a JSON string. Seems like a non-starter. Rick > > 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
