On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Waldemar Horwat <walde...@google.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> > wrote: > > > > Given that Array already uses `length`, it seems like the obvious choice. > > "length" is my choice as well, for the same reason. It's not writable > in Maps and Sets, so the concerns about the semantics of writing it > don't apply. > Who can resist such a juicy bikeshed... Just wanted to jump in and say non-writable length is consistent with String behavior as well, but David makes a good point about length implying metric topology. David's suggestion of `count` is nice. ISTM what we're talking about is `cardinality`, but no need to get too silly w/ precision. Though `size` is just fine with me, and has plenty of prior art. Whatever name is chosen I'd prefer it be something other than `length`, and for it to also exist on Array.prototype as a read-only property returning this.length. This way this new property becomes the new `length` for every "compound" type, whether it be an object, array, string, map, set, etc. And `length` would remain for all sequence (numerically-indexed) types.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
