Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(O) ? // plural

[Andrea Giammarchi]

this boilerplate is error prone and prolix plus it cannot be optimized in
core so it's also very slow.

With the introduction of classes, Symbols, and all ES6 new entries, I feel
like the `for(var key in object)` loop is dead but developers have no way
to clone objects in the right way and in one shot possibly
optimized/optimizable in core.

I understand it's very late but I wonder, with Rick help, if a "brutal"
copy and paste of a very simple spec that feels natural as complement of
the singular `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(O, k)` would be considered
... I certainly don't want waste Rick time with this, neither yours, of
course.

So, in case ES6 is not an option, I wonder if we could have a slot in ES7
so that the polyfill could be adopted and developers life made easier.

I really hope I didn't need in ES6 to write this:

```javascript
var shallowCopy = Object.create(
  Object.getPrototypeOf(originalObject),
  Object.getOwnPropertyNames(originalObject).concat(
  Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(originalObject)
  ).reduce(function (descriptors, name) {
    descriptors[name] = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(
      originalObject, name
    );
    return descriptors;
  }, {})
);
```

Thanks in advance for any outcome.



On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Apparently this triggered an @rwaldron which seems to be super-effective
>>
>> In agenda for April's meeting.
>>
>
> Yep: https://github.com/tc39/agendas/blob/master/2014/04.md
>
> Going to try, but it's so late in the game that I really can't promise
> anything--I think it's simple enough that we can get away with it. I will
> write up a proposed normative spec (likely based on Andrea's work) before I
> present, I've found that's a pretty powerful way to make a case for late
> additions ;)
>
>
> I like this cloning idiom, but I don't see why we would consider this for
> ES6, it isn't something that is critical or can't be implemented via ES
> code.  It would be much more appropriate to queue it up for the 2015 train.
>
> ES6: let's wrap this sucker up!
>
> Allen
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140304/ed5fb0ab/attachment.html>