allen at wirfs-brock.com
Fri Nov 2 17:26:28 PDT 2012
On Nov 2, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> Note that we (the JS/ES designers) already have a history of being being inconsistent in our use of names. Consider String indexOf and Array indexOf
>> they are named the same and appear to have signatures. But they logically are doing quite different things. String indexOf is looking for the index of the first element of a subsequence of character elements that matches a specific character sequence. Array indexOf is looking for the index of a single element that contains a specific value. You might want to implement a logically similar subsequence search for Array's but if you do, you can't call it indexOf because that name was already used for something with different semantics. We should try to do better as people for our example.
> That one never bugged me, and I suppose one could "fix" it by allowing by-value search for a sub-array from Array.prototype.indexOf. I've never seen anyone do that.
It never bothered me either up to now. Probably because we usually don't think about JS strings as a "collections" (immutable array of uint16s) all that much. But if you starting thinking about strings as a kind of collection and look for uniformity in collection interfaces, indexOf stands out as being problematic.
> "has" for keys (and possibly values of a Set, to preserve the value mapped to boolean future option that forEach also supports), "contains" for values in arrays
sounds ok, except we get the same issue for contains that we have for indexOf. II guess the big thing with contains is that it can be applied no non-indexed collections (maps, sets, etc.).
Also any reason contains should be provided for WeakMap? I not seeing why it shouldn't be there too.
More information about the es-discuss