W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: What are the desired semantics of forEach for iterables?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 17:05:35 -0500
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56426A2F.6080907@mit.edu>
On 11/7/15 4:08 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> - Assume that if an indexed getter is present, the object is array-ish, so the (value, index, this) signature will be used. Otherwise assume it's set-ish, so use (value, value, this).
> I admit though that the existence of set-ish but not setlike<> interfaces is speculation at this point. (Although, DOMTokenList...)

Which acts Array-ish in the one impl that has forEach on it, right?

 > So maybe we should just go with (value, index, this) always.

What I would like to propose is that we only allow one-type iterables on 
things with an indexed getter for now, make it clear that once we have a 
concrete use case for something else we will figure out how it should 
work (so people who have such a use case will tell us about it), and for 
the "one-type iterable with indexed getter" case use Array-ish behavior.

>> 3)  How should deletion and addition during iteration, especially deletion be handled?  The two possible answers are:
> I don't have a real opinion on this and would be happy to go with whatever's simpler to implement or results in a faster forEach method for authors.

What's simpler/faster to implement is just incrementing an index and 
possibly skipping things if deletions happen during forEach.  That, 
incidentally, makes forEach match what the actual iterator does (as 
specced at the moment) if you delete things in between calls to next(). 
  Again, this matches how Array works, but not Set and Map...  But 
clearly I'm fine with the simpler to implement thing.  ;)

Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 22:06:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC