Okay, I know that "a.b" is already valid syntax but with the common field retrieval method this is inconsistent. ```js const obj = { "a.b" : 1 }; const oak = { a : { b : 1 } }; obj["a.b"] // This is the only way of getting this field oak.a.b oak["a"]["b"] // This object has as least two different ways. ``` Currently not using quotes is valid method of defining field names but if you use quotes you can get names that look like they point to a sub object Sebastian
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Sebastian Malton <sebast...@malton.name> wrote:
But as I pointed out, it's not shorthand unless the object only has one property. As of the second property, it's only more concise if the main property name is just one character; at two characters, it's a tie; and from three characters it's *less* concise. From three properties onward it's less concise even with a single-character top-level name: ```js // One property let o = {ex: {b: 1}}; // Current let o = {ex.b: 1}; // Proposed; shorter // Two properties, main property's name is only two characters: let o = {ex: {b: 1, c: 2}}; // Current let o = {ex.b: 1, ex.c: 2}; // Proposed; same // Two properties, main property's name is 3+ characters: let o = {foo: {b: 1, c: 2}}; // Current let o = {foo.b: 1, foo.c: 2}; // Proposed; longer // Three properties: let o = {a: {b: 1, c: 2, d: 3}}; // Current let o = {a.b: 1, a.c: 2, a.d: 3}; // Proposed; longer ``` At that point it blossoms: ```js // Four properties let o = {a: {b: 1, c: 2, d: 3, e: 4}}; // Current let o = {a.b: 1, a.c: 2, a.d: 3, a.e: 4}; // Proposed; longer // Five properties let o = {a: {b: 1, c: 2, d: 3, e: 4, f: 5}}; // Current let o = {a.b: 1, a.c: 2, a.d: 3, a.e: 4, a.f: 5}; // Proposed; longer ``` I have shown it to people and it apparently help with mongo integration. How, precisely?
We'll just have to disagree there. :-)
That's not going to happen. Again, `{"a.b": 1}` is *already* valid syntax. It creates an object with a property called `a.b` (which is a perfectly valid property name) with the value `1`. See: https://jsfiddle.net/nwydgju2/
We'll have to disagree there, as well. :-) Moreover, making "configs" with _javascript_ isn't really a goal, as far as I know. -- T.J. Crowder | ||
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
