On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> It's very likely it was (should have been I believe) discussed before, >> and even probably was approved, but I don't see it in the latest draft yet. >> > > The following has been discussed, but... > > >> >> Just to make sure, the signature of the "assign" and "mixin" method >> should be: >> >> Object.assign(target, source,[source2, ..., sourceN]); >> Object.mixin(target, source,[source2, ..., sourceN]); >> >> Current draft shows me only one source for both the methods. >> > > That's correct. The third argument is being reserved for a descriptor map > (potentially). Object.assign is not specified to match the _exact_ > behaviour of any existing object "merge", "extend", "mixin" operation. > > OK, good to know. Can you show a practical example with this (potential) descriptor map argument? Just wanna make sure it's really more useful than accepting multiple sources. > This is not unreasonable: > > function merge(target, ...sources) { > return sources.reduce(Object.assign, target); > } > Sure. The question is not that we can write own abstraction on top of existing behavior, the question is having it out of the box. Unless the descriptor map you mention really worth it. Dmitry
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
