(oops, forgot to reply-all) Begin forwarded message:
> From: Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > Date: October 3, 2012 10:15:57 AM PDT > To: Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Sets plus JSON > > > On Oct 3, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Herby Vojčík 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. >>> }; >>> ... > > This is one of the reasons that it is important that Set (and Map, etc.) are > specified (and implemented) in a manner that makes them fully subclassable. > By subclassing, individual use cases for serializing them can be kept > distinct rather than multiple libraries or subsystems fighting over who gets > control of the single implementation of Set.prototype.toJSON > > Allen >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
