[Prototype-core] Re: Array#intersect and Array#without inconsistency
Tobie, Do you have any input on this? Yes, I'm in favor of strict equality. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Array#intersect and Array#without inconsistency
There seems to be more support for strict equality, so I'll write up a patch with that and modify some test cases around the change. Allen Madsen http://www.allenmadsen.com On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Tobie Langel tobie.lan...@gmail.com wrote: Tobie, Do you have any input on this? Yes, I'm in favor of strict equality. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Array#intersect and Array#without inconsistency
Re: Array.uniq and Array.include and '==': There's a bug in the existing Array.uniq where [false, 0].uniq() returns [false]. I would prefer '===' for Array.include. See: http://prototype.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8886/tickets/786-optimize-arrayuniq-to-return-in-on-time --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Array#intersect and Array#without inconsistency
From my perspective, I never use arrays to store objects of different types (I think that sort of thing belongs in an object of its own). So in theory I don't particularly care either way. However, == seems to be the standard way since many methods use include, which uses ==, or use == directly. I think === is particularly useful when you are trying to restrict an operation to a type in addition to the value and I don't see array or enumerable operations as needing that restriction. In addition, AFAIK, the only values that could be matched between types are numbers, strings, and booleans, which I don't see as very harmful. Allen Madsen http://www.allenmadsen.com On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM, kangax kan...@gmail.com wrote: On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, Allen bla...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I was looking into some of the array methods and noticed this inconsistency. [1].without(1); [] [1].intersect([1]); [] Basically, without uses an == comparison, whereas intersect uses an === comparison. IMHO, I think == is more appropriate. As such, I have forked the prototype repo and modified intersect. You can view the diff here: http://github.com/blatyo/prototype/commit/8b9a7b721ef787110f85c03a28c... I also created a test to see how the two methods performed against each other. See that here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/prototype-core/web/uniontest.tar.gz Here are some of the results I got in milliseconds (running on chromium): Testing New Intersect 4517 4614 4823 4998 4856 Testing Old Intersect 7321 7337 7376 7353 7331 Let me know what you guys think. There's also `uniq`, which relies on `==`: [1, 2, 3, '1'].uniq(); [1, 2, 3] `without` actually relies on `include`, so it is `include` that would need to be changed. I think I'd rather see `===` used instead of `==` where possible, although there are probably cases when `==` is more convenient. Btw, `NaN` inequality to each other might be confusing in context of `uniq`. It might be worth mentioning in the docs that `[NaN, NaN].uniq ()` results in the very same `[NaN, NaN]`. -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Prototype-core] Re: Array#intersect and Array#without inconsistency
On Sep 3, 1:55 pm, Allen bla...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I was looking into some of the array methods and noticed this inconsistency. [1].without(1); [] [1].intersect([1]); [] Basically, without uses an == comparison, whereas intersect uses an === comparison. IMHO, I think == is more appropriate. As such, I have forked the prototype repo and modified intersect. You can view the diff here: http://github.com/blatyo/prototype/commit/8b9a7b721ef787110f85c03a28c... I also created a test to see how the two methods performed against each other. See that here: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/prototype-core/web/uniontest.tar.gz Here are some of the results I got in milliseconds (running on chromium): Testing New Intersect 4517 4614 4823 4998 4856 Testing Old Intersect 7321 7337 7376 7353 7331 Let me know what you guys think. There's also `uniq`, which relies on `==`: [1, 2, 3, '1'].uniq(); [1, 2, 3] `without` actually relies on `include`, so it is `include` that would need to be changed. I think I'd rather see `===` used instead of `==` where possible, although there are probably cases when `==` is more convenient. Btw, `NaN` inequality to each other might be confusing in context of `uniq`. It might be worth mentioning in the docs that `[NaN, NaN].uniq ()` results in the very same `[NaN, NaN]`. -- kangax --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Prototype: Core group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
