allen at wirfs-brock.com
Fri Nov 2 18:23:49 PDT 2012
On Nov 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>> "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.).
> I'm not sure there's enough of a problem with using contains (or indexOf) to justify splitting contains-names, which has its own problems (inconsistency with indexOf, also with other languages, _mutatis mutandis_, e.g. Java).
me neither...just a wart
>> Also any reason contains should be provided for WeakMap? I not seeing why it shouldn't be there too.
> How about Map contains (as well as has)?
> How about Set for that matter?
Because people might actually use Map contains not realizing it isn't a near constant time probe like has. But, that concern is offset by the disability of having a consistent set of collection interfaces plus we don't like being a nannies.
I'd probably be on board with with having both for Set/Map/WeakMap
More information about the es-discuss