Array.prototype.toObjectByProperty( element=> )

Naveen Chawla naveen.chwl at
Wed Aug 9 07:26:57 UTC 2017

I do not use entries so I would not use `Object.fromEntries`. For arrays I
could just use reduce, instead of transforming to [key, value] entries,
before factoring it into an `arrayToObject` function in my code (which I
already do) when I want to do it from more than one place in my code - if
there existed no more direct way of transforming from iterable to object.
All entries arrays are iterable, but not all iterables are entries arrays,
which means that iterable is the more generic concept than entries, meaning
that iterable, not entries, is the more suitable starting point for this

`Object.fromIterable(iterable, keyFromElement[, valueFromElement])` is more
verbose than `iterable.toObject(keyFromElement[, valueFromElement]) and
doesn't allow chaining after iterable transformation methods (like `filter`

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 16:23 Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at> wrote:

> OK thanks for the link - can you explain where the complexity is in my
> proposal?
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 at 16:14 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Naveen Chawla <naveen.chwl at>
>> wrote:
>> > Furthermore, if you use entries, this allows `[key, value]` entries
>> > with object keys to be transformed into objects (which is not
>> > allowed by `Object.fromEntries`):
>> With respect, please do have a *thorough* read of my first reply in this
>> thread, the ensuing discussion with Darien, and Darien's proposal, in
>> particular [this bit of it](
>> Those various sources explain my comment about complexity and how
>> `Object.fromEntries` might do what you want.
>> -- T.J. Crowder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list