I have suggestion about specification of the escape.
I think I can speak for the rest of us when I say: I really am not sure what you're trying to say, here. Could you provide some examples?
Hey guys,
I communicate that when we go use the escape to object JSON it don't escape correctly. So I think we should add this suggestion.
const obj2 = {"name": "NodeJS", "version": "all"}; console.log(escape(obj)); //%5Bobject%20Object%5D
It needs to do this:
const obj = {"name": "NodeJS", "version": "all"}; console.log(escape(obj)); //%7B%22name%22%3A%22NodeJS%22%2C%22version%22%3A%22all%22%7D
As this we will reduce a step to escape.
Wthat's you think about? I make myself available to do this.
Now gotcha?
2017-11-24 7:52 GMT-02:00 Michael Rosefield <rosyatrandom at gmail.com>:
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Renan Bastos <renanbastos.tec at gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey guys,
I communicate that when we go use the escape to object JSON it don't escape correctly. So I think we should add this suggestion.
const obj2 = {"name": "NodeJS", "version": "all"}; console.log(escape(obj)); //%5Bobject%20Object%5D
I don't see any need to do that. escape(JSON.stringify(obj))
is not
over-long. Small, composable functions are a good thing. And if you want to
define a escapeAsJSON
function, it's easy to do that in your code.
I do see reasons not to do it: We'd have to handle the situation where an
object overrides toString
and is expecting the string from that, not
JSON, to be used by escape(obj)
. Handling that would be ugly, it would be
along the lines of "Get toString
from the object. If toString
is not
%ObjProto_toString%
, then..."
-- T.J. Crowder
It would break backwards compatibility, so it's absolute no-go.
Adding new function with such behaviour is unlikely, because escape is defined in Annex B - and Annex B is effectively "deprecated but needs to be there for backwards compatibility". "Use encodeURI developer.mozilla.org/pl/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referencje/Obiekty/encodeURI
or encodeURIComponent developer.mozilla.org/pl/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referencje/Obiekty/encodeURIComponent
instead" (MDN).
And I agree with T.J. Crowder - it's easily implementable in user land as single-line arrow function and it's very specific use case.
Hello,
Guys, I have thinked about one this title. So, I suggestion to we change the form of to escape one Object JSON. Today we have that to make this converting JSON to String, but I thought more interesting the function native did it. What you think about?
Att, See ya. @renanbastos93 www.renanbastos.com.br