- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:59:22 +0300
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=e1R=J1q17SWqp7AmSq9fzBEV9JKtCAkUnyPDZ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> > wrote: > > 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. > > As I've asked previously in the tread. What problem are you trying to > solve? Can you describe the type of application that gets easier to > write/possible to write/has cleaner code/runs faster if we make this > change? > > It seems like deleting on .put(undefined) creates a very unexpected > behavior just to try to cover a rare edge case, wanting to both store > undefined, This is not correct. The proposal was trying to remove an asymmetry within the API. > and tell it apart from the lack of value.In fact, the > proposal doesn't even solve that edge case since it no longer is > possible to store undefined. Which brings me back to the question > above of what problem you are trying to solve. > ...this is trying to solve an asymmetry within the API. I know this is something I've gone back and forth on, but you'll remember that both Pablo and I (and maybe Andrei?) were not very excited about the asymmetry to begin with. Anyway, I'll differ to you since I think this (along with several other of the issues I've raised) are mostly judgement calls rather than issues with a clearly technically superior solution and you have been doing most of the hard spec work lately. J
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 09:00:58 UTC