I've added the subject to the agenda Rick
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > First, I think we should question adding plain-named methods to > long-standard prototypes. > > Second, we should avoid cybercruddy names. > > Third, we should be careful to break common pairings such as key and value. > > Where does this leave us? I'm thinking close to wanting a functional API, > generic keys, values, entries (nee items), with any method delegation using > symbol-named @keys, @values, @entries. > > /be > > > Brandon Benvie wrote: > >> On 7/23/2013 9:00 AM, Till Schneidereit wrote: >> >>> Given that, I don't see how we can expect to be able to land >>> Array.prototype.values in any meaningful timeframe and think dropping it or >>> changing the name should be considered. >>> >> >> Bikeshed time! I submit "vals" and "items". >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
