On Jan 10, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:

> 
> ### I’m looking for a simple explanation of what enumerability will be, going forward. If there isn’t one then I’d argue that no new feature should be influenced by it.

That was one of the argument made in favor of concise methods defaulting as not enumerable: enumerable really only controls whether a property shows up in for-in (and a couple closely related reflection functions) and for-in has been essentially deprecated and replace by for-of.  That makes the enumerable attribute an obsolete feature and we should be trying to give it meaning for new features.  Hence, just always default it to true.

Allen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140110/27125e07/attachment.html>

On Jan 10, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:

> ### I’m looking for a simple explanation of what enumerability will be, going forward. If there isn’t one then I’d argue that no new feature should be influenced by it.

That was one of the argument made in favor of concise methods defaulting as not enumerable: enumerable really only controls whether a property shows up in for-in (and a couple closely related reflection functions) and for-in has been essentially deprecated and replace by for-of.  That makes the enumerable attribute an obsolete feature and we should be trying to give it meaning for new features.  Hence, just always default it to true.