On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >>> 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) >> >> That is an interesting point. Does the prevention of sharing ever occur in >> practice (apart from hiding the methods of built-in prototype objects from >> for...in)? >> > In my experience, this is extraordinarily rare (so much that I can't think of > any relevant code bases) >
Pardon, I missed and cannot find what is Object.assign(...), seems it's not from the latest draft. Is it just defining properties (via Object.defineProperty) on from a source to destination object? Like old-good Object.extend(...)? But from just an abstract viewpoint -- we could control non-enumerable properties with a boolean flag (includeNonEnumerable). Dmitry
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
