Array.prototype.includesAll

Shahar Or mightyiampresence at gmail.com
Tue Jun 14 19:06:10 UTC 2016


>
> What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`?
>

Of course. Updated to use `.every`.

I disagree with this test
>
> ```js
> expect([2, 3].includesAll()).toBe(false)
> ```
>

> The array `[2,3]` includes all items in `[]`. So it should return `true`.
>

 There are no items in `[]` so that doesn't seem like a true statement to
me.
However, one could argue both ways. So I look at `.includes`:
```js
[].includes() // false
[1]includes() // false
// and so on...
```
So, at least consistency pulls towards `false`.

> It'd be nicer if it took an array, rather than being variadic. That also
preserves the ability to add extra arguments in the future.

I see the point. Updated to use a single array argument.

---

Here it is: http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160614/a8db6a77/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list