TC39 won't lie => TC39 won't like
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I never hold on on polyfills, I already use Object.mixin in redefine.js > and other personal code ;-) > > I think the direction is that second argument to N extra is an old pattern > TC39 won't lie for any new API > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < > dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Please hold on with pollyfilling, until we realize this is something is >> really required and can be useful. If it's not, this should be changed to >> multiple arguments. Since this "potential" map is not even in current >> draft, I believe Rick refers to something that was never taken as a real >> thing to apply. >> >> Dmitry >> >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think `[mixin1, mixin2, mixin3].reduce(Object.mixin, source);` is a >>> win, only thing I am not sure, is how this third argument could make into >>> this approach (if reusable, I didn't even know about this extra arg) >>> >>> Any hint on the extra arg appreciated for polyfill purpose, thanks >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < >>> dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Rick Waldron >>>> <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < >>>>> dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> It's very likely it was (should have been I believe) discussed >>>>>> before, and even probably was approved, but I don't see it in the latest >>>>>> draft yet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The following has been discussed, but... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just to make sure, the signature of the "assign" and "mixin" method >>>>>> should be: >>>>>> >>>>>> Object.assign(target, source,[source2, ..., sourceN]); >>>>>> Object.mixin(target, source,[source2, ..., sourceN]); >>>>>> >>>>>> Current draft shows me only one source for both the methods. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's correct. The third argument is being reserved for a descriptor >>>>> map (potentially). Object.assign is not specified to match the _exact_ >>>>> behaviour of any existing object "merge", "extend", "mixin" operation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> OK, good to know. Can you show a practical example with this >>>> (potential) descriptor map argument? Just wanna make sure it's really more >>>> useful than accepting multiple sources. >>>> >>>> >>>>> This is not unreasonable: >>>>> >>>>> function merge(target, ...sources) { >>>>> return sources.reduce(Object.assign, target); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure. The question is not that we can write own abstraction on top of >>>> existing behavior, the question is having it out of the box. Unless the >>>> descriptor map you mention really worth it. >>>> >>>> Dmitry >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss