On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if the plan of TC39 is to start returning the object >> on which a method was invoked if that method would otherwise just >> return undefined. E.g. this seems to be what Object.freeze() and >> Object.preventExtensions() do. It's also a somewhat popular API idiom >> in jQuery and the like (see also method chaining, fluent interface). >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "start"—this is already the prevailing > practice. APIs either return an expected specified value/object, the target > object (in the case of static built-ins, eg. Object.freeze(o); // o ) or a > new specified object (eg. Array.prototype.{ filter, map } etc.). > > > >> >> (The reason I'm asking is that I just WONTFIXED two bugs asking for >> that stating that ECMAScript did not have this pattern either and I >> was confronted with the above. > > > Links? > > >> I had been looking at Map.set() >> myself.) >> > > The ES6 Map, Set and WeakMap API specifications are still in development > and probably shouldn't be used to make decisions like this. > > In this particular case there is no rationale documented for these not > returning the object they are called from, so it's still open for > discussion, ie. Map.prototype.set, Set.prototype.add and > WeakMap.prototype.set. > Perhaps we can knock this out quickly at the next meeting?Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 14:09:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:07 UTC