On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Mark S. Miller <erig...@google.com> wrote:
> > > Is "fear driven design" just a derogatory phrase for "defensive > programming"? > Not at all. I wrote "fear driven design" in a moment of frustration, referring only to the opposition of adopting a (widely held as) best practice based solely on what appears to be subjective opinions versus objective observation of real world use cases. The argument: "if you have to scan the code to another page to figure out which object the code is interacting with, it's bad readability" Would apply in only one extreme case that is so incredibly stupid, I posit this will be an anomaly: set.add(...).add(...).add(...).add(...).add(...).add(...).add(...)... The likely very common cases are quite nice and not at all confusing to read: (copied from an earlier message in this thread) Add value to the Set and get a fresh iterable for the keys, values, entries: set.add( value ).keys(); set.add( value ).values(); set.add( value ).entries(); Add value to the Set and send each value in the set to another operation: set.add( value ).forEach( item => ...send to some operation.... ); Add value to the Set and spread into an array of unique items: [ ...set.add(value) ]; // [ a, b, c, ... ] And of course, the same for Map. More here: https://gist.github.com/4219024 I have respect for valid technical and security related concerns and would certainly love to discuss those if any have been identified. Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
