There are no items in [] that aren't included in [2,3]. A separate question is whether undefined should mean []; I'd say it should throw a TypeError instead.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Shahar Or <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`? >> > > Of course. Updated to use `.every`. > > I disagree with this test >> >> ```js >> expect([2, 3].includesAll()).toBe(false) >> ``` >> > >> The array `[2,3]` includes all items in `[]`. So it should return `true`. >> > > There are no items in `[]` so that doesn't seem like a true statement to > me. > However, one could argue both ways. So I look at `.includes`: > ```js > [].includes() // false > [1]includes() // false > // and so on... > ``` > So, at least consistency pulls towards `false`. > > > It'd be nicer if it took an array, rather than being variadic. That also > preserves the ability to add extra arguments in the future. > > I see the point. Updated to use a single array argument. > > --- > > Here it is: http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012 > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
