With your last two implementations, you don't keep cyclic references.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Peter van der Zee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: >> Based on your description, it seems that the definition would be: >> >> JSON.clone = function(o){ >> return JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(o)); >> } > > Yes. You can debate whether it should remove properties it can't > serialize completely, or define them with null. You can also debate > whether you want to treat objects that don't directly inherit from > Object as alien (right now that doesn't seem to be the case in Chrome > at least. > > JSON.clone({foo:5}) -> {foo:5} > > These are the cases I could (easily) see debatable... > > JSON.clone({foo:function(){}}) -> {foo:null} or {} > function F(){} > JSON.clone({foo:new F}) -> {foo:{}} or {foo:null} or {} > var f = new F; > f.x = 5; > JSON.clone({foo:f}) -> {foo:{x:5}} or {foo:null} or {} > F.prototype.x = 5; > JSON.clone({foo:new F}) -> {foo:{x:5}} or {foo:{}} or {foo:null} or {} > > But I guess keeping the same behavior as JSON.stringify for a > JSON.clone method might be best to keep things consistent. So > something like Mark's last suggestion, to make the whole thing > customizable. > > - peter > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
