I expected a set would have an undefined iteration order to give implementations the opportunity to make optimizations that maintaining order would not allow.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Adam Shannon <a...@ashannon.us> wrote: > I thought that Set wasn't going to even have insertion order as a > "possible". The idea behind any Set (outside of ES even) is that it is > just a collection of elements, unordered. > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 19:32, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com> > wrote: >> >> On Feb 12, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Peter Michaux wrote: >> >>> In the proposal, iterators for Set are listed as todo. If engine >>> implementers have decided to start moving forward implementing Sets, >>> then it would be great if they could get iteration going sooner than >>> later. >>> >>> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:simple_maps_and_sets >> >> Before getting too deep into iteration protocol for Sets (and Maps) there is >> a more fundamental issues: Will Set define a standard, implementation >> independent ordering of elements? If so, what is the basis for the ordering? >> >> Is it iteration order? Is so this will add likely add space overhead to the >> internal representation of Set and Map and/or time overhead to >> insert/delete operations. Also, for specializations of Set such as Integer >> Sets insertion order may not be the most desirable iteration ordering. >> >> Allen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > Adam Shannon > Developer > University of Northern Iowa > Sophomore -- Computer Science B.S. & Mathematics > http://ashannon.us _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
