Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 21:27:04 PDT 2012

On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:32 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>>> I've always viewed enumerability as an implied intent of sharing. Copying non-enumerable properties is a violation of my expectations (I assure you, I'm not alone)
>> That is an interesting point. Does the prevention of sharing ever occur in practice (apart from hiding the methods of built-in prototype objects from for...in)?
> In my experience, this is extraordinarily rare (so much that I can't think of any relevant code bases)

Pardon, I missed and cannot find what is Object.assign(...), seems it's not from the latest draft. Is it just defining properties (via Object.defineProperty) on from a source to destination object? Like old-good Object.extend(...)?

But from just an abstract viewpoint -- we could control non-enumerable properties with a boolean flag (includeNonEnumerable).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121017/f057c976/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list