set.delete method name
russell.leggett at gmail.com
Wed Feb 29 07:19:45 PST 2012
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:
> Despite my comments about not letting archaic browsers dictate our future,
> which still stands...
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree add/remove is more semantic as put/delete would be.
> I also complete agree with the intuitiveness of add/remove over add/delete
+1 in agreement here.
>> I also said that m.delete is problematic for shims, not because of
>> missing m["delete"] possibility, simply because it looks really ugly to
> ...But you would never have to do this in any browser that has correctly
> implemented *Identifier, **IdentifierName *and* ReservedWord *semantics.
> Non-Browser JS can implement this with minimal, if not zero, adverse effect.
We should not underestimate the amount of help that shims have been for
moving real world development towards standards. Its nice to be principled
about how it shouldn't matter with correct implementations, but if we can
make the transition easier why not? If people are forced to build their own
abstractions (instead of just shims) then it creates problems with needing
certain libraries, or having differences between libraries. Sometimes its
inevitable, but here I see no gain for keeping it delete.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss