FWIW, while I find needs like this common, too, where Map is sensible
instead of
Object, it does come out pretty clean:
```
const a = [
{id: "tjc", name: "T.J. Crowder"},
{id: "nc", name: "Naveen Chawla"},
{id: "lh", name: "Lachlan Hunt"}
];
const index = new Map(a.map(member => [ member.name, member ]));
```
Although I’m also puzzled by the suggestion that reducing to an object is
an abuse,
I do find I wish there were a complement to `Object.entries`:
```
// Object to pairs, and therefore map, is simple:
const map = new Map(Object.entries(obj));
// Converting back is also simple ... but not exactly expressive:
[ ...map ].reduce((acc, [ key, val ]) => Object.assign(acc, { [key]: val
}));
```
Something like `Object.fromEntries` would not provide as much sugar for the
OP case as `toObjectByProperty`, but it gets pretty close and has the
advantage
of being more generic; `toObjectByProperty` strikes me as rather specific
for a
built-in, especially since one might want to map by a derived value rather
than
a property. Both map<->object and array<->object cases would become more
expressive — plus it follows pretty naturally from the existence of
`Object.entries` that there might be a reverse op.
```
Object.fromEntries(a.map(a.map(member => [ member.name, member ])));
```
In other words, `Object.fromEntries(Object.entries(obj))` would be
equivalent in
effect to `Object.assign({}, obj)`.
Would that adequately address this case you think? My sense is that it’s
better to supply generic helpers before more specific helpers when it comes
to built-ins.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
