@sebmarkbage @wycats @ericf as in: throw if user tries to observe either? I'd say that makes sense
-
-
Replying to @sebmarkbage
@sebmarkbage@wycats@ericf sorry, I'm in a grocery in Bath, England on free wifi and barely reading before replying.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rwaldron
@rwaldron@sebmarkbage@ericf null or undefined as the object or a missing prop?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @sebmarkbage
@sebmarkbage@rwaldron@ericf can you give me some usage patterns where it makes sense to not know?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sebmarkbage
@sebmarkbage@wycats@rwaldron I’m trying to remember the backstory on this… maybe@awbjs remembers.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ericf
@ericf@sebmarkbage@wycats@rwaldron So the idea is: Object.assign(obj, undefined) should be a no-op. AFAIK, this is a new request.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @awbjs
@ericf@sebmarkbage@wycats@rwaldron What's the tradeoff between convenience and hidden bugs?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@awbjs @ericf @sebmarkbage @rwaldron I'm not as worried about convenience and refactoring hazard. for/in semantics are what they are :/
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.