domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-01-06T14:17:41.029Z)
I agree with adding more of the array primitives to sets - sets are just an "weakly ordered" version of arrays, so basically all of them make sense. map() is the only troublesome one, because it can produce a smaller set, if you return the same value from multiple iterations. This isn't necessarily bad, but it's surprising.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:36 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> 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 existing sets very much like what > we already have with arrays. I haven't had a use for a .reduce yet, but > maybe that would make sense too? > The toJSON is just to provide a good default. Obviously anyone disatisfied > with it can shadow it on specific instances. But this serialization makes > more sense by default than the one you get now (own properties of the set > object... which have none in common usages?) I agree with adding more of the array primitives to sets - sets are just an "weakly ordered" version of arrays, so basically all of them make sense. map() is the only troublesome one, because it can produce a smaller set, if you return the same value from multiple iterations. This isn't necessarily bad, but it's surprising. ~TJ