On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Jake Verbaten <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Potential issues >>> >>> - subset of JSON is too restricted to be useful >>> >> >> This alone seems like a deal-breaker/non-starter. How would you copy >> methods? Forgetting about cyclic reference exceptions for a moment: >> > > The idea here is that methods do not belong in data structures (clone > should be to efficiently clone data). > This is already too much "unfortunate" restriction. What about calculated "get" properties: > var o = { ... get foo() { ... return "foo"; ... } ... }, ... clone = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(o)); > clone { foo: 'foo' } > a possible solution would be allow you to set the [[Prototype]] of the > returned clone through the API somehow and then store methods on prototypes. > > It does gain the benefit of not having to document the edge-case behaviour > for cloning methods. It would presumably also be an API that can > efficiently clone the new binary data types. The main purpose is efficient > in memory copies of data and not generic cloning of things. > > If we add a clone, we probably want to add support for cloning binary data > types to the list as well. >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
