> Sure, Object.create(proto).extend({k1:v1, ... kN:vN}).
>
> If you want to make that one method instead of two, a new Object.createSimple
> or better name would be needed.
Such a method would be very useful independently of this use case!
I would also love to have turn Object.defineProperties into a similar method.
Naming-wise, one could introduce a new system, for example:
- Object.createSimple(proto, props?) versus Object.createDesc(proto, descs?)
- Object.prototype.extendSimple(props) versus Object.prototype.extendDesc(descs)
=> use something more complex than "extend" to avoid name clashes.
Advantage: Mix normal property definitions with property descriptors:
var obj = {
count: 3,
}. extendDesc({ MAX_COUNT: { value: 10, writable: false, configurable:
false } });
== Big picture ==
1. The two most prevalent use cases are handled by:
- property definitions in object literals (thanks to Allen’s operators,
those can be used in many more places now).
- the proposed "#" prefix for read-only properties.
=> easy to understand new syntax, lightweight (little grawlixing), sticking
to 80-20.
2. More complex requirements can be handled by using property descriptors.
#2 would become more lightweight by additional syntax, but it seems like that
has already been discussed and rejected:
var obj = {
count: 3,
MAX_COUNT := { value: 10, writable: false, configurable: false },
}
Thus: If one uses ":=" (previously: const-ification) then the RHS is a property
descriptor. This would also be nicely future-proof with regard to possible
upcoming property descriptor extensions.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
