Set constructor arguments

[Andrea Giammarchi]

Set.fromIterable() as factory is basically same as

var s = Set.apply(null, ['alpha', 'beta']);

since as it is for all native functions the constructor is a factory itself
and no need to "new"

my 2 cents,
   br

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> My suspicion: All these features make sense for the full-blown collections
> API, but for sets I’m not sure at which point they wouldn’t be “simple”,
> any more.
>
> Oliver Hunt makes a good case: “With the existence of the spread operator
> I think that there's a good
> argument in favour of the multiple parameters approach.”
>
> An additional option is to introduce a “static” factory method:
> Set.fromIterable().
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:29 , Michael A. Smith wrote:
>
> …But we wouldn't want to require the arguments to the set constructor
> to require instantiation itself/themselves, right? If a set has to be
> constructed with an Iterable, and cannot (also) be constructed with
> individual atoms, then you'll end up with use cases like Set(['foo',
> 'bar', 'baz']), which requires two constructions, one of which is
> essentially a waste. If allowing both forms of the constructor is
> distasteful, then why not just go with the multiple parameters,
> approach, and implement toSet() as a method on appropriate Iterables?
>
> -Michael A. Smith
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Erik Arvidsson
> <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The default argument should probably just be an iterable.
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2012 4:50 PM, "Oliver Hunt" <oliver at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> I saw a reference to it being modified to take an array(-like?) as a
>
> parameter.  While I can see an argument in favour of a single array
> argument
>
> I can also see using a set of parameters that initially populate the set.
>
>  We just shouldn't allow both (and introduce another version of the horror
>
> that is the Array constructor).
>
>
> With the existence of the spread operator I think that there's a good
>
> argument in favour of the multiple parameters approach.
>
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de
>
> home: rauschma.de
> twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
> blog: 2ality.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120213/1898a4e7/attachment-0001.html>