On Nov 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >>> "has" for keys (and possibly values of a Set, to preserve the value mapped >>> to boolean future option that forEach also supports), "contains" for values >>> in arrays >> >> sounds ok, except we get the same issue for contains that we have for >> indexOf. II guess the big thing with contains is that it can be applied no >> non-indexed collections (maps, sets, etc.). > > I'm not sure there's enough of a problem with using contains (or indexOf) to > justify splitting contains-names, which has its own problems (inconsistency > with indexOf, also with other languages, _mutatis mutandis_, e.g. Java).
me neither...just a wart > >> Also any reason contains should be provided for WeakMap? I not seeing why it >> shouldn't be there too. > > How about Map contains (as well as has)? > > How about Set for that matter? Because people might actually use Map contains not realizing it isn't a near constant time probe like has. But, that concern is offset by the disability of having a consistent set of collection interfaces plus we don't like being a nannies. I'd probably be on board with with having both for Set/Map/WeakMap Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
