Mark S. Miller wrote:
Sets and Maps are deterministically ordered by insertion order.
I know; my point was whether this should be reduce order (and
reduceRight the reverse?).
/be
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozil
Le 31/12/2013 20:52, Calvin Metcalf a écrit :
I had the same idea a couple weeks ago and turned it into a library
https://github.com/calvinmetcalf/set.up if anyone finds it useful.
hmm... It is useful, but not future-proof. If methods with these names
ever get standardized, your code will overri
Le 01/01/2014 00:34, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
How about Maps?
Sets and arrays are very much alike in that they are collections of
items. Maps are more like objects. I'd expect maps to have methods like
the one we apply on object (Object.keys, etc.), but I think everything
is covered.
I guess
https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Jorend/Deterministic_hash_tables
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Forrest L Norvell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
>> Sets and Maps are deterministically ordered by insertion order.
>>
>
> I understand how the need to specify a det
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Sets and Maps are deterministically ordered by insertion order.
>
I understand how the need to specify a deterministic traversal order for
for-of led to this result, but doesn't that preclude a number of
(potentially faster with larger col
How about Maps? And since their order is deterministic, how about the rest of
the array extras?
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 11:36 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been playing with Sets recently and believe that the following additions
> would make them more useful by default:
> * Set.proto
On Dec 31, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> David Bruant wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> I haven't had a use for a .reduce yet, but maybe that would make sense t
Sets and Maps are deterministically ordered by insertion order.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Bruant wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been playing with Sets recently and believe that the following
>> additions would make them more useful by default:
>> * Set.prototype.m
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> David Bruant wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> I haven't had a use for a .reduce yet, but maybe that would make sense too?
>
>
> Are Sets ordered just because for-of says so? :-P
>
>
> Actually, a
On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> David Bruant wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> I haven't had a use for a .reduce yet, but maybe that would make sense too?
>
> Are Sets ordered just because for-of says so? :-P
Actually, according to the spec. they are ordered, but this is only currently
David Bruant wrote:
Hi,
I've been playing with Sets recently and believe that the following
additions would make them more useful by default:
* Set.prototype.map
* Set.prototype.filter
* Set.prototype.toJSON = function(){
return [...this];
};
The 2 first are to easily create sets from exi
I had the same idea a couple weeks ago and turned it into a library
https://github.com/calvinmetcalf/set.up if anyone finds it useful.
It adds all the array methods that make sense, ie reduce but not reduceRight
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:36 PM, David Bruant wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been playing w
Hi,
I've been playing with Sets recently and believe that the following
additions would make them more useful by default:
* Set.prototype.map
* Set.prototype.filter
* Set.prototype.toJSON = function(){
return [...this];
};
The 2 first are to easily create sets from existing sets very much
13 matches
Mail list logo
