Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

I agree that the tone was a bit iffy, but I do support this being in a third party library. I have only a couple times ever had a legitimate need for this, one of which was to write an assertion that I later used. Not sure it's common enough it needs to be in the language. I just don't see the

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

There is a precedent here from set theory. A.includesAll(B) is really the equivalent of: A is a superset of B or otherwise put: B - A = empty set Hence, if B is the empty set, then it is indeed true for all sets A. Cheers On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Shahar Or

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Bob Myers wrote: > This proposal is so far from something that should go into the base language > that it makes me choke. > > Are you also going to propose that we add `includesNone` and `includesSome`? > Do you want to include an option to sort the

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

This proposal is so far from something that should go into the base language that it makes me choke. Are you also going to propose that we add `includesNone` and `includesSome`? Do you want to include an option to sort the items for efficiency? Why do you provide no `fromIndex` parameter? Shall

RE: Array.prototype.includesAll

> There are no items in `[]` so that doesn't seem like a true statement to me. It's true by [Vacuous_truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth). > So, at least consistency pulls towards `false`. You are misunderstanding what `includes` does when there is no argument. ```js

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

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 wrote: > What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`?

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

> > 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

RE: Array.prototype.includesAll

What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`? ```js Array.prototype.includesAll = function (...args) { return args.every(item => this.includes(item)); } ``` I disagree with this test ```js expect([2, 3].includesAll()).toBe(false) ``` The array `[2,3]` includes all items in `[]`.

Re: Array.prototype.includesAll

totype-includes-with-multiple-arguments > > How about something like this `Array.prototype.includesAll`? > http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012 > > > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > ht

Array.prototype.includesAll

Hey, following up from: https://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-includes-with-multiple-arguments How about something like this `Array.prototype.includesAll`? http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012 ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss