On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > > > On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > > > > I’m a bit skeptical about excluding non-enumerable properties for > > > > Object.assign(). I still find enumerability a hard concept to wrap my > > > > mind around, because it pops up in unexpected places. At the moment, it > > > > mostly matters for for...in and > > > > Object.keys()/Object.getOwnPropertyNames(). Does it really make sense > > > > to increase its role in JavaScript? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a matter of paving the cow path of least surprise. Imagine if you > > tried to copy the properties and values of a plain object to an object with > > a null prototype and all of those properties you explicitly didn't want > > were now present. > But those won’t be copied, because only own properties will be copied. I’d be > more worried about adding non-enumerable own properties to an object and > those *not* being copied. I've always viewed enumerability as an implied intent of sharing. Copying non-enumerable properties is a violation of my expectations (I assure you, I'm not alone)
Rick > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > home: rauschma.de (http://rauschma.de)twitter: twitter.com/rauschma > (http://twitter.com/rauschma) > blog: 2ality.com (http://2ality.com) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
