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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:53 UTC