On 01.08.20 19:41, MG wrote:
Hmmm, I am for consistency, but at least I use very few maps as compared
to lists, and rarely ever output the size of a map, but constantly for
lists, so having getSize() on List would still be beneficial.
This has of course been discussed many times before - maybe a "size"
operator:
#list // list.size()
#map // map.size()
#string // string.length
a size() method is the way of consistency we did go for. It exists on
collection, string, array and map. We added it to string and array so
you do not to have to remember using length or length()
which people could override (e.g. sizeOf() method) and which unifies all
kinds of "how many elements do I hold / how big am I" concepts (if its
not a collection holding items) ?-)
why sizeOf() if there is already size()?
bye Jochen
