> > Should `extend' copy all the properties? Only the "own" properties? I feel > `own' properties make more sense. >
I agree "own" makes more sense, we also want to specify whether we want to extend "enumerable" properties. Your example does not. > > > - Defining new objects that extends on the [[Prototype]], which is > basically Object.create followed by copying the properties of one or more > objects over to the new instance. (Object.clone? Object.inherit? I never > felt `extend' quite says it all) > > Object.prototype.clone(Object parent, Object mixins...) → Object > (Object.extend.apply(Object.**create(parent), mixins)) > I've been referring to this method as Object.make<https://github.com/Raynos/pd/blob/master/src/pd.js#L120> it's defiantly a useful method, however I don't think "clone", "inherit" or "make" are correct names for it. "clone" is probably the most suitable name, especially if it's on Object.prototype > var foo = Base <| { > #constant: 1, // or const > @private_stuff: bar, // or private > method1() { }, > method2() { } > get stuff() { } > } > > Except I'm not sure the @private could be made to work without creating > confusing semantics around it, so object literals would still be one step > behind. As far as I understand "@private_stuff" would desugar into a name object only available in scope of the object literal. var o = { @private_stuff: bar; method1() { } } var o = (function () { var private_stuff = name.create(); var ret = { method1() { } } ret[private_stuff] = bar; })(); I personally don't find that confusing.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
