True. I was thinking shallow clone:
```js
var copy = Object.assign({ __proto__: obj.__proto__ }, obj);
```
But `Object.mixin()` (or `Object.define()`, I thought the case for re-renaming
it was convincing) is probably a better match here.
Will `keys()`, `values()` and `entries()` from module "@dict" ignore
non-enumerable properties, too?
Axel
On Jan 12, 2014, at 6:28 , Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Brendan Eich wrote:
>>> I can only think of cases (including Claude Pache’s pro-enumerability
>>> example) where I would want to copy *all* own properties.
>>
>> Why do you want an array's .length to be copied?
>
> Or in Claude's example, why should a non-enumerable _parent be copied?
>
> Claude's words about the advantage of non-enumerable _parent *not* being
> copied were pretty clear. He was not advocating *all* own properties.
>
> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/enumerability#content-2
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
