On Friday, November 2, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Domenic Denicola > <dome...@domenicdenicola.com (mailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com)> wrote: > > > If we call it "has", should we also rename String.prototype.contains? > > > > I'd say no; the distinction between collections "having" an element and > > strings "containing" a substring seems very sensible. It's a bit more > > awkward to say a string "has" a substring, and a string is definitely not a > > collection of substrings in any reasonable sense. > > Well, you could also note that array.has(x) looks for a particular value, > while map.has(x) looks for a particular key. > > But that's not the point. There's no common formal contract implemented by > all these methods; what they share is an informal "hey, look in this thing, > and tell me if you see that thing" vibe. > > I like the idea of being able to say str.has(",") or str.has("=>") or > str.has("@jorendorff") and have them all just work. This is definitely nice :) Jason, Erik, Mark, Any specific thoughts about the SameValue case as it likely doesn't apply to a hypothetical String.prototype.has impl.? I suspect that a string had would still use indexOf which would introduce an internal inconsistency for the sake of API consistency (which I'm all for). Unless I'm overlooking? Rick > > -j > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
