-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
Support ES6 method-shorthand constructors in extend (#4213) #4300
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
BigBalli
wants to merge
1
commit into
jashkenas:master
Choose a base branch
from
BigBalli:fix-4213-es6-constructor
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can imagine making this check a bit more precise, in one of the following ways:
(combination of both)
Can we think of situations where the distinction might be important enough that one of the more precise versions might be preferred? I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a feeling that it might be important that the
prototypeis an own property ofconstructor, which would warrant the_.hascheck.CC @GammaGames @Yahasana
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch. Would be good to switch to
_.has(supplied, 'prototype').Walking the realistic inputs (classic functions, classes, shorthand, arrow/async/generator), the truthy check and
_.hasbehave identically. Own-vs-inherited only diverges if someone doesObject.setPrototypeOfon a shorthand method, which isn't a real user path. But_.hasexpresses the intent directly ("supplied a function with its own prototype slot") instead of leaning on truthiness as a proxy, so it's the better line at the same cost.We could skip the
typeof === 'object'variant. The only way to fail it with a truthyprototypeis manual assignment likeFn.prototype = 42, which is sabotage either way.