On 24.08.2011 0:39, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
And what about this method Object.getMethods(...),
Object.getMethodNames(...). Do we need it? I think it can be useful
(since methods can be non-enumerable, and Object.keys(...) won't
help, and after Object.getOwnPropertyNames(...) you have to manually
filter them when `typeof` is "function")
I'm don't really see the that they are needed enough to build these in
when they can be synthesized pretty easily. What is the justification
for these and not others such as getAccessorProperties,
getDataProperties, getNonWritableProperties, etc.
Maybe, why not? `Object.methods` is just standard in some languages
(e.g. Ruby, `foo.instance_methods`). Yes, all of yours listed above
could be either built-in or self-implemented, don't know how often they
are needed IRL. This topic follows the recent near topic with
doc-comments of functions. The same, playing with a new language in
console it's the best just to type e.g. `foo.methods` (like in Ruby) and
to see directly the list of methods to which the object responds.
Besides, perhaps they can be used in other meta-level programming, but
the initial idea seems studying the language in the console and playing
with objects (not sure though whether it's a sound reason to be accepted
for standardization).
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
