`new Set(Object.keys(obj))` seems pretty straightforward - I doubt it's worth adding something to the language just to make that shorter.
Separately, if you're looking for a deduped O(1) lookup of key presence, you already have _an object_ - `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, key)`. On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 8:28 AM Ehab Alsharif <ehalshari...@gmail.com> wrote: > Other than the fact that Object.keys existed really before Sets, you are > comparing apples and oranges here in your benchmarks. > the include method has to scan the array in order to find elements, but > sets are objects which are just hash tables. > Also you typically don't get the keys array to check that a key is there, > you can do that directly using the object you have. > Another thing is that the typical use case for Object.keys is to get an > iterator over the keys, returning a set for that purpose does not serve > that purpose directly. > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 4:51 AM #!/JoePea <j...@trusktr.io> wrote: > >> Sets are faster, even for tiny lists of four items. See the perf tests >> (tested in Chrome): >> >> https://twitter.com/trusktr/status/1315848017535098880 >> >> https://twitter.com/trusktr/status/1317281652540731392 >> >> #!/JoePea >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
