Iterable to object via `Object.fromIterable` On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 13:31 Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JS doesn't have interfaces (yet, tho there's a proposal) and regardless, > the "interface" for "iterable" is "it has Symbol.iterator, nothing more". > > The only place a method like this - that produces an object - could > possibly exist, is a static method on Object. > > I've already outlined two existing methods to copy one object's entries to > another; the only new functionality would be "creating an object from > entries", hence Object.fromEntries or similar. > > I still haven't seen any use cases that aren't covered by the existing > "copy one object to another", or by a possible "entries to object" - does > anyone have any? > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> But I accept that this a very tall order for ES >> >> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 13:22 Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Java has a great example of such a construct: default interface methods >>> >>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 13:21 Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The `toObject` behaviour doesn't need to be "implemented" on a >>>> per-iterable class basis. It has a constant behaviour: iterate and on each >>>> next(), pass the value to the `toKeyFromElement` and `toValueFromElement` >>>> callbacks to generate and return an object. There must be some construct by >>>> which that can be achieved. I wouldn't call it "better" to put it on Object >>>> (for the reasons stated), but rather a compromise in the absence of any >>>> such construct >>>> >>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 13:12 T.J. Crowder < >>>> tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.c...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > It would be in the `iteratable` `protocol` (interface) >>>>> >>>>> As Jordan said, that's likely to be a nonstarter. The Iterable >>>>> protocol is *very* lean (exactly one required property) for a reason: So >>>>> it >>>>> can be supported with minimum investment. Much better, IMHO, to put >>>>> functions on `Object` and `Map` (which is why that's what I suggested). >>>>> >>>>> -- T.J. Crowder >>>>> >>>> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
