> Le 3 juin 2015 à 12:46, Leon Arnott <leonarnott at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
> Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
> configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
> IsArray() test from
> [22.1.3.11](https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-isconcatspreadable).
> Would've made the Array#concat() behaviour a little cleaner, in my
> opinion.

Given that "inheriting from `Array.prototype`" and "being an Array object" are two distinct notions,

that would be a breaking change from the past that needs careful consideration.

—Claude

Le 3 juin 2015 à 12:46, Leon Arnott <leonarnott at gmail.com> a écrit :

> This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
> Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
> configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
> IsArray() test from
> [22.1.3.11](https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-isconcatspreadable).
> Would've made the Array#concat() behaviour a little cleaner, in my
> opinion.

Given that "inheriting from `Array.prototype`" and "being an Array object" are two distinct notions, that would be a breaking change from the past that needs careful consideration.

> Le 3 juin 2015 à 12:46, Leon Arnott <leonarnott at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> This reminds me: I feel like the spec should've added
> Array.prototype[Symbol.isConcatSpreadable] (value:true,
> configurable:false, writable:false), and eliminated the final
> IsArray() test from
> [22.1.3.11](https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-isconcatspreadable).
> Would've made the Array#concat() behaviour a little cleaner, in my
> opinion.

Given that "inheriting from `Array.prototype`" and "being an Array object" are two distinct notions, that would be a breaking change from the past that needs careful consideration.