Awesome! Please let's do this! I don't understand the comment about Object.keys, etc. If they continue to be specified in terms of [[OwnPropertyKeys]], then they get cleaned up as well, which seems good.
Is there a reason why we might want to continue to underspecify Object.keys, etc? If there is, how would you continue to underspecify Object.keys etc, while still cleaning up [[OwnPropertyKeys]]? Do we also have an opportunity to (finally!) pin down for/in ordering as part of this? On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > I'm in the middle of updating the spec. of [[OwnPropertyKeys]] to returns > an Array rather than an Iterator. While doing this I realized that because > [[OwnPropertyKeys]] is essentially a new MOP level operation we have the > opportunity to precisely define the property key ordering it exposes for > ordinary objects. This seems like a one-time opportunity that we shouldn't > pass up. > > Note that this doesn't necessarily mean we need to change the > unspecified/weakly specified ordering of exiting library functions such as > Object.keys (even though they are specified in terms of > [[OwnPropertyKeys]]). But it does mean that new library functions such as > Reflect.ownKeys will be defined with a fully specified specified ordering. > > The ordering I propose is: > 1) All array index property keys, in ascending array index numeric order. > Followed by: > 2) All other string property keys, in property creation order. Followed by: > 3) All symbol property keys, in property creation order > > Does anybody see any reason why we shouldn't specify (this) property > ordering? > > Allen > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
