The email I responded to: "It would make sense if you make setting a key to undefined semantically equivalent to deleting the value (and no error if it does not exist), and return undefined on a get when no such key exists. That way 'undefined' cannot exist as a value in the object store, and is a safe marker for the key not existing in that index." undefined should be symmetric. If something not existing returns undefined then passing in undefined should make it not exist. Overloading the meaning of a get returning undefined is ugly. And simply disallowing a value also seems a bit odd. But I think this is pretty elegant semantically. J On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > > I really like this idea. I only skimmed the arguments against it, but > they > > all seemed pretty hand-wavy to me. > > Which idea specifically do you like? > > / Jonas >
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:44:55 UTC