Wholeheartedly agree with this. For library authoring it's a necessity, so a define like function is always the first thing in any .js file I make. The need for library authors is obvious but if I recall the conclusion was that those authors would be able to handle it themselves and to push off on codifying it into the language so popular patterns could emerge. I think that article well outlines how this is actually a need and concern in authoring of non-library code. Specifically, accessors are a part of the language (and are going to see more and more use as ES5 becomes the baseline) and in order to correctly handle those for structure-copying you must use descriptor-aware functions.
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm the past we discussed issues surrounding the semantic differences > between "put" and "define" and we've agreed to include Object.assign in > ES6. We have also discussed Object.define but have not yet made a decision > to include it. > > Nicholas Zaka recently posted a short article that addresses issues > relating to the assign/define distinction > http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/12/11/are-your-mixins-ecmascript-5-compatible/ > as they already surface in ES5. > > For me, this article reenforces that we really need to have something like > Object.define in ES6. > > It also made me think that perhaps Object.mixin might be a more intuitive > name for such a function. > > Allen > > _______________________________________________ > 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
