andrysimo1997 at gmail.com (2018-11-28T21:29:51.298Z)
@Ranando
I think you meant:
```js
F({par1, par2, ..., parN}) {
Object.assign(this, arguments);
}
```
This is briefly explained on github, anyway you'll get an undesired
`length` property.
Il giorno mer 28 nov 2018 alle ore 22:20 Ranando King <kingmph at gmail.com>
ha scritto:
@Ranando I think you meant: ```js F({par1, par2, ..., parN}) { Object.assign(this, arguments); } ``` This is briefly explained on github, anyway you'll get an undesired 'length' property. Il giorno mer 28 nov 2018 alle ore 22:20 Ranando King <kingmph at gmail.com> ha scritto: > What about this: > > ```js > F({par1, par2, ..., parN}) { > Object.assign(this, arguments[0]); > } > ``` > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:20 PM Simo Costa <andrysimo1997 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> @Claude >> >> Your suggestion is still too much verbose/ripetitive in my opinion >> because you repeat the `this`keyword. I agree with the "limited use cases" >> of my proposal but not with your concerns about the syntax, but I am open >> for improvements on it. >> I do not think that it could bring more mistuderstading than the >> introduction of the rest/spread syntax has brought. >> >> And about the Object.assign solution, there are always (theoretically) >> an object creation and a function call, as well as the repetition of the >> parameters. >> `Object.assign(this, {x, y});` >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss at mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20181128/e7a1d45d/attachment-0001.html>