contains better than indexOf ? I'd agree only if contains wasn't accepting any extra argument, which makes it even more (pointless?) similar to indexOf.
If it had only one incoming parameter, you could have `["maria", "marianne"].some(str.contains, str)` and win over all other examples. but just the `!=-1` or `>-1` as reason to prefer contains? ... dunno, I think I have 99 problems in JS related development, `>-1` ain't one :-/ On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Garrett Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/10/15, Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm still having hard time understanding what's the difference between > > contains and the good old indexOf beside the RegExp check ... but I agree > > having multiple explicit searches instead of multiple implicit searches > > won't make such big difference. Good news is, you probably will still use > > RegExp anyway because names can be composed and haveing a \bName\b helper > > is probably what you might need anyway :-) > > > > i.e. Maria !== Marianne > > > > What if Array had a contains or containsAll functions? > > var s = "Maria, Mariana"; > var a = s.split(/\s*,\s*/); > ["Maria", "Mariana"].every(e=>{return a.indexOf(e)!=-1}); > true > > But a `contains` function might be better than indexOf > > ["Maria", "Mariana"].every(e=>{return a.contains(e)}); > > But `containsAll` might be even better. > > a.containsAll(["Maria", "Mariana"]) seems even easier to read for me. > > There is already `filter` for exclusions. What about merging arrays? > > Array.union(array2, array3, ...); > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Bergi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Edwin Reynoso wrote: > >> > >> > There are times where I would like to check whether a string has every > >> > occurrence of certain strings/numbers: > >> > > >> > Now to achieve what I would like `String.prototype.includes` to > >> accomplish > >> > with an array as the first parameter, I currently take the following > >> > approach: > >> > > >> > var str = "John,Mary,Bob,Steve"; > >> > var names = ["Mary", "Bob"]; > >> > names.every(name => str.includes(name)); // true; > >> > >> And that's perfectly fine imho, pretty expressive about what is done > >> about > >> the array. Just passing an array to `.includes` is rather meaningless > >> (not > >> denotative). > >> > >> If we need a method to do this (to allow for native optimisations with > >> fancy string search algorithms), I'd suggest to use a different method > >> name > >> like `String.prototype.includesAll`. > >> > >> Bergi > >> _______________________________________________ > >> es-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >> > > > > > -- > Garrett > @xkit > ChordCycles.com > garretts.github.io > personx.tumblr.com >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
