Traversal in insertion order for Set.prototype.add/delete

[Mark S. Miller]

I don't understand the issue. Could you give a tiny example test case for
checking the specced order vs one for checking the order as you think it
should be specced?


On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Qantas 94 Heavy <qantas94heavy at gmail.com>wrote:

> We need a deterministic order. What deterministic order do you suggest?
>> Why would it be better?
>>
>
> Sorry for the confusion, I completely worded that wrong.
>
> I'm specifically referring to the specification sections 23.2.3.1
> and 23.2.3.4 (specifying the behaviour for Set#add and Set#delete), which
> states that:
>
> 6. Repeat for each e that is an element of entries, *in original
>> insertion order*
>
>
> I don't see any real reason why that's needed, unless there's some odd
> side effects of doing so that I'm not aware of. Sets are meant to be unique
> and I don't think the order of checking whether the element already exists
> really matters. I'm not advocating for any change for the deterministic
> order of iteration in Set#forEach and for-of loops on sets.
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140424/432e108f/attachment-0001.html>