marmax at gmail.com
Wed Jun 11 03:49:18 PDT 2014
Hi David :)
thanks for the links !
You are right, it's generally about data. Serialize an object to JSON
prevent from sharing references. On the twitter feed Jeremy talks
about optimizing the process . I'm agree with that, for performance
and a nicer syntax.
By the way, the Object.deepFreeze is really interesting , especially
for an API and when you want to set some "private" properties . But I
think it is a workaround to the issue of cloning because you can't
freeze all objects and maybe you want to have a mutable object but
cloning it afterward.
2014-06-11 9:58 GMT+02:00 David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com>:
> Hi Maxime,
> Good to see you here :-)
> This topic has been discussed recently on Twitter. See
> I'm like Rick's answer in particular
> as I believe a large share of cloning is just about data
> As discussed in this Twitter thread, immutable data structures would be an
> interesting idea too. If an object is guaranteed to be deeply immutable,
> then, it can be passed around without the need for cloning. Clones are only
> necessary because the initial object is mutable in the first place.
> Immutable data structures have been briefly discussed here recently:
> (see replies too)
> Le 11/06/2014 08:49, Maxime Warnier a écrit :
>> Thanks for your answers.
>> Object.assign seems good but provides only copy for enumerable
>> properties, not a real deep clone.
>> I know for jquery, that's why i precised "only for DOM" but it was
>> just to show the syntax :)
>> 2014-06-11 0:00 GMT+02:00 Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>:
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Maxime Warnier <marmax at gmail.com>
>>>> Hi All
>>>> Do you know if it is planned or maybe in discussion for ES7 to have a
>>>> simple clone system on objects ?
>>>> There are different notations, from :
>>>> - jquery
>>>> Object.clone( [withDataAndEvents ] [, deepWithDataAndEvents ] )
>>> jQuery doesn't clone objects, it clones DOM elements.
More information about the es-discuss