Proposal: Boolean.parseBoolean

T.J. Crowder tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com
Mon Mar 20 19:10:40 UTC 2017


Funny, I'd go the other way. We have `parseInt` in part because we also
have `parseFloat`. `Date` has `parse` (but it doesn't return a `Date`,
sigh). `JSON` has `parse`.

For me, consistency with Java isn't important for this.

My $0.02 for what it's worth...

-- T.J. Crowder



On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 7:07 PM, James Treworgy <jamietre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd say there's no clear model for consistenty, e.g. JSON.parse. One could
> argue that the template is that anything which has only one way to parse is
> to use `parse`. Numbers have more than one way (`parseInt`, `parseFloat`)
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov <
> dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:57 AM, T.J. Crowder <
>> tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any reason for not just using `Boolean.parse`? (Rather than repeating
>>> `Boolean` in the function name?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Just a copy-paste from Java, similarly was done with `parseInt` taken
>> from Java. But just `parse` probably would work too. For consistency and
>> predictability `parseBoolean` is probably better now.
>>
>> Dmitry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170320/905d2c71/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list