Making Object Literals a sub-class of Object

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at
Fri Oct 14 14:33:20 UTC 2016

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:05 AM Brian Ninni <ninni.brian at> wrote:

> I did a quick search and didn't find any recent mentions of this topic.
> 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.
> Array, RegExp, Function, and Class Literals all already create an Object
> sub-class, so why not Object Literals?

Terminology clarification: "Object literal" refers to the syntactic grammar

> It doesn't have to operate any differently than a standard Object does
> (though it allows room for deviation in the future), just have a different
> constructor so it can easily be determined whether it is a literal or not.
> This would break code that uses `obj.constructor === Object`, but that
> code is not always reliable since the 'constructor' property can be
> overwritten without any side-effects anyway.
> Are there any other major reasons why this is a bad idea?

Objects created by `new Object()`, `Object()`, `let/const/var o = {}` are
functionally equivalent*—changing the runtime semantics of only the
syntactic form would be a web-breaking change.

* Follow:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list