I agree that the tone was a bit iffy, but I do support this being in a
third party library. I have only a couple times ever had a legitimate need
for this, one of which was to write an assertion that I later used. Not
sure it's common enough it needs to be in the language. I just don't see
the need
There is a precedent here from set theory.
A.includesAll(B)
is really the equivalent of:
A is a superset of B
or otherwise put:
B - A = empty set
Hence, if B is the empty set, then it is indeed true for all sets A.
Cheers
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Shahar Or wrote:
> What's the
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Bob Myers wrote:
> This proposal is so far from something that should go into the base language
> that it makes me choke.
>
> Are you also going to propose that we add `includesNone` and `includesSome`?
> Do you want to include an option to sort the items for effi
This proposal is so far from something that should go into the base
language that it makes me choke.
Are you also going to propose that we add `includesNone` and `includesSome`?
Do you want to include an option to sort the items for efficiency?
Why do you provide no `fromIndex` parameter?
Shall we
> There are no items in `[]` so that doesn't seem like a true statement to me.
It's true by [Vacuous_truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth).
> So, at least consistency pulls towards `false`.
You are misunderstanding what `includes` does when there is no argument.
```js
[1].includes
There are no items in [] that aren't included in [2,3]. A separate question
is whether undefined should mean []; I'd say it should throw a TypeError
instead.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Shahar Or
wrote:
> What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`?
>>
>
> Of course. Updated to u
>
> What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`?
>
Of course. Updated to use `.every`.
I disagree with this test
>
> ```js
> expect([2, 3].includesAll()).toBe(false)
> ```
>
> The array `[2,3]` includes all items in `[]`. So it should return `true`.
>
There are no items in `[]` so th
What's the point of using `reduce` instead of `every`?
```js
Array.prototype.includesAll = function (...args) {
return args.every(item => this.includes(item));
}
```
I disagree with this test
```js
expect([2, 3].includesAll()).toBe(false)
```
The array `[2,3]` includes all items in
iple-arguments
>
> How about something like this `Array.prototype.includesAll`?
> http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012
>
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> htt
Hey, following up from:
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-includes-with-multiple-arguments
How about something like this `Array.prototype.includesAll`?
http://codepen.io/mightyiam/pen/PzNLKr/?editors=0012
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss
10 matches
Mail list logo
