Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I’m a bit skeptical about excluding non-enumerable properties for
Object.assign(). I still find enumerability a hard concept to wrap
my mind around, because it pops up in unexpected places. At the
moment, it mostly matters for for...in and
Object.keys()/Object.getOwnPropertyNames(). Does it really make
sense to increase its role in JavaScript?
It's a matter of paving the cow path of least surprise. Imagine if
you tried to copy the properties and values of a plain object to an
object with a null prototype and all of those properties you
explicitly didn't want were now present.
But those won’t be copied, because only own properties will be copied.
I’d be more worried about adding non-enumerable own properties to an
object and those *not* being copied.
I've always viewed enumerability as an implied intent of sharing.
Copying non-enumerable properties is a violation of my expectations (I
assure you, I'm not alone)
That's it. I was not able to phrase it this way, but I agree. That's why
I was struck by making concise methods enumerable.
Rick
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de <mailto:a...@rauschma.de>
home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
