yes, because `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(O, k)` accepts both `propertyName` and `Symbol` as second argument. The plural, and to be consistent with the shallowCopy example, should return a list of both.
This is also because all descriptors returned by `Object.getOwnPropertySymbols` can be used same way `Object.getOwnPropertyNames` ... so, unless `Object.defineProperty(O, k, d)` does not accept `k` as `Symbol` (basically breaking this proposal via `Object.create`) I don't see why the plural version should not return descriptors for both kind of properties. My 2 cents On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > Question: should the returned array include property descriptors for > properties whose key is a symbol? > > Rick > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Apparently this triggered an @rwaldron which seems to be >>> super-effective >>> >>> In agenda for April's meeting. >>> >> >> Yep: https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2014/04.md >> >> Going to try, but it's so late in the game that I really can't promise >> anything--I think it's simple enough that we can get away with it. I will >> write up a proposed normative spec (likely based on Andrea's work) before I >> present, I've found that's a pretty powerful way to make a case for late >> additions ;) >> >> >> Rick >> >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>> ------------------------------ >>> From: C. Scott Ananian <[email protected]> >>> Sent: 3/4/2014 6:16 >>> To: Andrea Giammarchi <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected] list <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(O) ? // plural >>> >>> Have you filed a bugzilla ticket for this? That seems the best way to >>> ensure it will get discussed at the next TC39 meeting and resolved one way >>> or the other. >>> --scott >>> On Mar 3, 2014 8:44 PM, "Andrea Giammarchi" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> up ? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Brandon I take your answer as +1, thanks. >>>>> >>>>> I've also "gisted" a possible/basic polyfill here: >>>>> https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/9317065 >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> actually, since `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` accepts `Symbols` >>>>>> too as second argument, the equivalent with current ES6 would be even >>>>>> more >>>>>> prolix than that >>>>>> >>>>>> ```javascript >>>>>> >>>>>> var shallowCopy = Object.create( >>>>>> Object.getPrototypeOf(originalObject), >>>>>> Object.getOwnPropertyNames(originalObject).concat( >>>>>> Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(originalObject) >>>>>> ).reduce(function (descriptors, name) { >>>>>> descriptors[name] = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor( >>>>>> originalObject, name >>>>>> ); >>>>>> return descriptors; >>>>>> }, {}) >>>>>> ); >>>>>> >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> >>>>>> assuming Symbols will be definable through descriptors ... all this >>>>>> VS >>>>>> >>>>>> ```javascript >>>>>> var shallowCopy = Object.create( >>>>>> Object.getPrototypeOf(originalObject), >>>>>> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(originalObject) >>>>>> ); >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> >>>>>> which I believe is a win. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if by any chance this could sneak into ES6 ... we have only >>>>>>> singular version here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-object.getownpropertydescriptor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **rationale** >>>>>>> The easiest way to create a shallow copy of a generic object could >>>>>>> be: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ```javascript >>>>>>> var shallowCopy = Object.create( >>>>>>> Object.getPrototypeOf(originalObject), >>>>>>> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(originalObject) >>>>>>> ); >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today what we have to do this instead: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ```javascript >>>>>>> var shallowCopy = Object.create( >>>>>>> Object.getPrototypeOf(originalObject), >>>>>>> Object.getOwnPropertyNames(originalObject).reduce( >>>>>>> function (descriptors, name) { >>>>>>> descriptors[name] = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor( >>>>>>> originalObject, name >>>>>>> ); >>>>>>> return descriptors; >>>>>>> }, {}) >>>>>>> ); >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see latter pattern as sort of unnecessary overhead that could be >>>>>>> also much faster in core and polyfilled in the meanwhile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
