If you have to fall through so many cases to get to the Object case why would you not just use `goog.object/get`?
This type of convoluted convenience over just doing the right thing is never going to land in ClojureScript. David On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Peter Taoussanis <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is no simple test for plain objects, `typeof x` will return > `"object"` for many things. only `foo.constructor === Object` is going to > work. This is not as fast as it would seem. > > The test would be slow, but the cost only incurred when `get` is called on > something that's: > not nil, not an array, not a string, and that doesn't implement ILookup. > > Is there maybe a use case I'm missing why someone would realistically be > calling `get` for something not covered by one of the above? > > > We're not going to add any more cases to `get`. I've said all I'm going > to say about this matter :) > > Just trying to understand your rationale David, it's likely you're aware > of something that I'm not. > > -- > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "ClojureScript" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript. > -- Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ClojureScript" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojurescript.
