Making Object Literals a sub-class of Object

Bergi a.d.bergi at web.de
Fri Oct 14 13:24:38 UTC 2016


Brian Ninni wrote:

> On more than one occasion I've had to determine whether something was a
> plain old Object, or some other class. This involves checking that the
> given object was NOT an instanceof any other acceptable class.

`Object.prototype.isPrototypeOf(o)` should do that (if you don't care 
about other realms).

> Array, RegExp, Function, and Class Literals all already create an Object
> sub-class, so why not Object Literals?

Because Object-objects are just Objects and not anything special that 
would need a subclass with specific methods.

> Are there any other major reasons why this is a bad idea?

As you already said, it would break a great lot of code.

- Bergi


More information about the es-discuss mailing list