- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 22:05:25 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28448
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
This was discussed on the telcon today. 3 possible solutions were proposed:
(a) treat the value as "not found"
(b) throw an error
(c) remove the accessor from the spec (no-one actually references it).
Josh was inclined towards (b). Both MK and Josh felt that the accessor
functions here were rather pointless.
Coming to this again after the meeting, I think the accessors map:get() and
map:contains() as currently defined are pointless not just because no-one
currently uses them, but because they are not fit for use: they fail to define
behaviour precisely enough to underpin operations in the language such as
map:get(); for example they don't say anything about how equality of keys is
established. One solution to this might be to have a more primitive accessor
function: in place of the current three accessors, have a single accessor
map:entries() which returns an array of 2-member arrays, each 2-member array
being a key/value pair.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 22:05:27 UTC