>or perhaps we should have Set.of(...args) and Set.from(iterable) methods.
I was under the impression that Array.of() was solely an apologetic patch
over Array()'s broken arguments interpretation, and not really an apogee
for future or present collection classes.
Regarding the main topic: I pers
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 12:22:25 PM Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> As always with proposals to extend arity -- even if reserved by a thrown
>> error in a previous release -- how would you feature test for the extended
>> functionality?
>>
>> I suspe
On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 12:22:25 PM Mark S. Miller wrote:
> As always with proposals to extend arity -- even if reserved by a thrown
> error in a previous release -- how would you feature test for the extended
> functionality?
>
> I suspect the awkwardness of feature testing is one of the reasons w
As always with proposals to extend arity -- even if reserved by a thrown
error in a previous release -- how would you feature test for the extended
functionality?
I suspect the awkwardness of feature testing is one of the reasons why we
have not previously added new functionality by extending arit
On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 10:48:59 AM Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>
> > I’ve accidentally created the wrong set a few times:
> >
> > ```js
> > let set = new Set('red', 'green', 'blue');
> > // WRONG: same as new Set(['r', 'e', 'd'])
> > ```
>
On Feb 24, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> I’ve accidentally created the wrong set a few times:
>
> ```js
> let set = new Set('red', 'green', 'blue');
> // WRONG: same as new Set(['r', 'e', 'd'])
> ```
>
> Would it make sense to throw if either of the constructors `Set` and `Map
6 matches
Mail list logo