Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
"has" for keys (and possibly values of a Set, to preserve the value mapped to boolean
future option that forEach also supports), "contains" for values in arrays
sounds ok, except we get the same issue for contains that we have for indexOf.
II guess the big thing with contains is that it can be applied no non-indexed
collections (maps, sets, etc.).
I'm not sure there's enough of a problem with using contains (or
indexOf) to justify splitting contains-names, which has its own problems
(inconsistency with indexOf, also with other languages, _mutatis
mutandis_, e.g. Java).
Also any reason contains should be provided for WeakMap? I not seeing why it
shouldn't be there too.
How about Map contains (as well as has)?
How about Set for that matter?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
