On 11/11/2010 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Sorry, but I disagree. I feel that calling put results in a deletion to be highly counter-intuitive, even if it makes sense when you think about it.The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key to undefined semantically equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it does not exist), and return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That way 'undefined' cannot exist as a value in the object store, and is a safe marker for the key not existing in that index."undefined should be symmetric. If something not existing returns undefined then passing in undefined should make it not exist. Overloading the meaning of a get returning undefined is ugly. And simply disallowing a value also seems a bit odd. But I think this is pretty elegant semantically.
Cheers, Shawn
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
