Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Sat Jan 11 09:01:48 PST 2014

>> ### I’m looking for a simple explanation of what enumerability will be, going forward. If there isn’t one then I’d argue that no new feature should be influenced by it.
> That was one of the argument made in favor of concise methods defaulting as not enumerable: enumerable really only controls whether a property shows up in for-in (and a couple closely related reflection functions) and for-in has been essentially deprecated and replace by for-of.  That makes the enumerable attribute an obsolete feature and we should be trying to give it meaning for new features.  Hence, just always default it to true.

Good point. That “meaning for new features” should probably be clearly stated and dictate how `Object.assign()` behaves.

I know this runs counter the conventional wisdom for specs, but I find design rationales incredibly important for making sense of what’s going on: The answers and discussions on this mailing list were essential in helping me understand the language.


Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140111/90cd7d6a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list