On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > This is all very tricky and you may be able to make it work. But why? > Do you anticipate passing a multimap into a place that expects a map? > For these use cases, do you expect that the passer of the multimap > reliably intends to effectively pass only these "first" mappings per > key to the receiver? As I write this, it all seems crazy and > unreliable, and not a pattern we should encourage. Let's keep Map and > MultiMap as distinct types, and standardize only Map, WeakMap, and Set > this round.
I think it's reasonable in some cases to use a MultiMap as a plain Map - for example, in URLQuery, you might not want to encode any duplicated keys. In that case, it's perfectly fine to have it act like a normal Map. However, it may be better to just let MultiMaps have a method to cast themselves into Maps. After all, there are already two distinct types of MultiMaps - ordered (Array) and unordered (Set) - the latter can't be treated as a Map since it lacks the concept of a "first" value. A more important quality is probably just being iterable, which both Map and MultiMap would have in the same way, so that may be sufficient. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
