[Bug 26559] Maps and Arrays: Analogies

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26559

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Christian Gruen from comment #0)
> I was asked why some of the new map and array functions have been named so
> differently although they do similar things, and why there is some redundant
> functionality. Here are the suggestions we came up with:
> 
> * array:size vs. (no map:size anymore): it would be great if "map:size" was
> readded to the spec; count(map:keys()) is not very intuitive, at least to
> me, and it feels like a burden to loop through data if you simply want to
> know the number of entries.

I agree with you and Mike: adding map:size() back would be good.

> * map:for-each-entry, array:for-each-member: we could simplify the names to
> map:for-each and array:for-each, because the other functions are not named
> "array:filter-members" etc. either.

+1

> * map:merge vs. array:join: although different things may happen under the
> hood, they could share the same name. "map:join" sounds like an intelligible
> alternative to me.

Not so sure on this one.  Maybe using merge for both?  Or is there a better
name?

> * map:get vs. (no array:get): maybe we can get rid of this function, or (if
> it is required for some reason) additionally provide "array:get"?
> 
> * map:entry: maybe we can give up this one, too?

+1 on killing both.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 20:22:58 UTC