set.delete method name

[Brendan Eich]

JS avoids cybercrud names where possible, following Java which followed 
Smalltalk. But we do prefer concise verb-only methods where possible (no 
Kingdom of Nouns AbstractFactoryFactoryImpl names as in real-world Java; 
Smalltalk is better precedent but message selectors can afford to be 
more verbose when strung together than a single method name in JS should 
be).

So 'del' is too short. We had remove at some point, could go back to it. 
That seems like the best all-around name.

Thinking of collection *protocols* with suites of methods that have 
canonical names (get, force, set, has, remove) helps.

/be

Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> to me "del" was simply good enough, at least as fallback
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com 
> <mailto:waldron.rick at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     It would be tragic to determine future APIs based on _broken_
>     implementations of historic/archaic browsers - especially in an
>     age where the browser isn't the only "client" of the spec.
>
>
>     Rick
>
>     On Feb 12, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
>     <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com <mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>
>>     +1
>>
>>     had same thoughts when I wrote this:
>>     https://github.com/WebReflection/es6-collections
>>
>>     then I have realized older IE compatibility requires the usage of
>>     the string but I would have rather suggested
>>
>>     del
>>
>>     instead of remove so get, set, has, del ... all 3 chars, no
>>     problems with reserved keywords
>>
>>     br
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Peter Michaux
>>     <petermichaux at gmail.com <mailto:petermichaux at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         The Set proposal has a "delete" method. Old ECMAScript
>>         implementations
>>         do not allow "delete" to appear as a bare method name like
>>         set.delete('foo') and it is necessary to write the awkward
>>         set['delete']('foo'). Because of this and knowing polyfills
>>         will be
>>         written to support Set in older implementations, would it be
>>         better to
>>         choose "remove" as the method name so that set.remove('foo')
>>         can be
>>         written in the older implementations? I think this would save
>>         a lot of
>>         unnecessary debugging for cross-browser programming.
>>
>>         Peter
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         es-discuss mailing list
>>         es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>         https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     es-discuss mailing list
>>     es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>>     https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss