http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:array.prototype.has
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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> 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
>
--
erik
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
