This proposal replaces #4088 by @unclechu. I squashed their commits and then changed the comment again in a commit of my own. In this way, @unclechu is still credited for their effort to document the code, although their PR will be marked as rejected.
In my opinion, the line in question was misguided (see also #4266). It has no advantage over a simple call to _.defaults, except that it allows you to set attribute keys that collide with Object.prototype properties. I consider that a footgun rather than a feature.
This proposal replaces #4088 by @unclechu. I squashed their commits and then changed the comment again in a commit of my own. In this way, @unclechu is still credited for their effort to document the code, although their PR will be marked as rejected.
In my opinion, the line in question was misguided (see also #4266). It has no advantage over a simple call to
_.defaults, except that it allows you to set attribute keys that collide withObject.prototypeproperties. I consider that a footgun rather than a feature.Reviews welcome.