I've found myself using that pattern, actually. Say you have multiple
variables and want to pass one of them on to a function, which wants to
know the value (of course) of that variable but also some kind of name to
know which one was passed on.
The easiest way to do this in one pass at the stage you pass it on is for
the variable name to match the one needed later, and send it to the
function as the object `{ whateverName }`.
It does require, alas, more fiddling about to get the key/value pair from
the object after.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 at 15:19 T.J. Crowder <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM, somonek
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > could
> > myObject[in 0] === 'one' // true
>
> What's the use case? Relying on the order of the properties in the object
> is almost always a bad idea (although if I read the current spec correctly,
> `Object.keys` is no longer exempt from order as it once was). The only time
> I've seen this done that seemed reasonable was when the object was known to
> have a single own enumerable property but that property's name was unknown
> (which was, in itself, an X/Y problem -- the real problem was why that name
> was unknown/varied at runtime).
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
> _______________________________________________
> 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
