...and same for indexOf and lastIndexOf? ;-) On 7 mar 2014, at 13:33, Domenic Denicola <dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> If that's the argument, then Array.prototype.contains should accept another > Array, not an element to check. > >> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:49, "medikoo" <medikoo+mozilla....@medikoo.com> wrote: >> >> Domenic Denicola-2 wrote >>> Personally I think the more useful model to follow than >>> `String.prototype.contains` is `Set.prototype.has`. >> >> API wise, arrays have much more in common with strings than with sets. >> >> Thinking ES5, they're both array-likes, set isn't. They share `length` >> property, their values can be accessed through indexes arr[0], str[0], they >> share few method names (`indexOf`, `lastIndexOf`), and all non destructive >> array methods can be successfully executed on strings, while they won't work >> with sets. >> >> I think it would be more appropriate to stick with `arr.contains` especially >> that we already have `arr.indexOf` and `str.indexOf`, and both `indexOf` and >> `contains` share same signature. >> >> `arr.has` could be fine, if we also rename `str.contains` to `str.has`. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/Array-prototype-contains-tp309926p310234.html >> Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
