I fell into this very trap yesterday, spent a while trying to work out why modifying my set didn’t cause the state to update.
It’s a pity that set isn’t immutable by default, perhaps for performance reasons?
I do prefer the has(), add(), delete() syntax but it’d be even nicer if they just returned a new, immutable set in place, rather than having to pass the results to a new Set(currentSet) again.
I might revisit just using an array with a filter setState(currentState.includes(val) ? currentState.filter(x => x !== val) : [val, ...currentState])
Although apparently IE doesn’t support Array.includes()...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I fell into this very trap yesterday, spent a while trying to work out why modifying my set didn’t cause the state to update.
It’s a pity that set isn’t immutable by default, perhaps for performance reasons?
I do prefer the
has(),add(),delete()syntax but it’d be even nicer if they just returned a new, immutable set in place, rather than having to pass the results to anew Set(currentSet)again.I might revisit just using an array with a filter
setState(currentState.includes(val) ? currentState.filter(x => x !== val) : [val, ...currentState])Although apparently IE doesn’t support Array.includes()...