Rick Waldron (2014-01-13T04:20:18.000Z)
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-01-17T23:53:19.873Z)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to see some Rick or David example about the "expected to be > enumerable". > > If that's about knowing if a class is native or not, looping with a for/in > its prototype or any instance does not seem to mean anything reliable since > even native methods can be redefined and made enumerable. > Making concise method definitions default to enumerable: true had _nothing_ to do with classes and everything to do with code that *consumes* objects with concise method definitions. Refactoring this: ```js var o = { method: function() { } }; ``` To this: ```js var o = { method() { } }; ``` Should absolutely not change the resulting behaviour of a for-in loop over o's properties. I don't know why Allen said that for-in has been deprecated in favor of for-of, since the latter doesn't imply iteration over the properties of a plain object. That's not going away.